Mark Zuckerberg says Internet.org and net neutrality "can and must coexist," despite a backlash against his organization, which aims to bring free internet access to the developing world.

It can't, at least not from where users sit.

The trouble started this week when several Indian publishers decided to remove their services from the Internet.org app, claiming the app violates the basic tenets of net neutrality. The app offers users in developing countries access to a select group of services, like Facebook, news sites, and health information, without paying data charges. That's possible because, in the countries where Internet.org operates, the group has negotiated these terms with local carriers. The Indian publishers took issue with this setup, often referred to as "zero-rating," arguing that giving away some services puts those services that aren't available on the app at a disadvantage.

Arguments about net neutrality shouldn’t be used to prevent the most disadvantaged people in society from gaining access or to deprive people of opportunity. Mark Zuckerberg

"We support net neutrality because it creates a fair, level playing field for all companies—big and small—to produce the best service and offer it to consumers," The Times Group, one of the publishers that withdrew from Internet.org, said in a statement.

Today, Zuckerberg offered a rebuttal in a lengthy Facebook post, arguing that net neutrality "ensures network operators don’t discriminate by limiting access to services you want to use," a policy he says he fully supports. "Internet.org doesn’t block or throttle any other services or create fast lanes—and it never will," he writes. And yet, Zuckerberg glosses over the fact that Internet.org is providing its own kind of preferential treatment.

Technically, Internet.org is an open platform any website or app can join, but as Zuckerberg notes, it would be impossible to give the entire Internet away for free. "Mobile operators spend tens of billions of dollars to support all of Internet traffic," he writes. "If it was all free they'd go out of business." That means most services necessarily must be left out if Internet.org is to be financially viable for carriers. This creates a system of fundamentally unequal access for the companies trying to reach these users and for users themselves.

For the companies, it means the power to decide which Internet users they're able to reach is out of their hands. Instead, it's up to Internet.org, local governments, and carriers to decide which services are vital enough to secure a space within the Internet.org app. And for users, it means having access to only a sliver of what is supposed to be the worldwide web. As we've said before, this creates "an Internet for poor people." It can also create the expectation that access to the Internet always will be free, a mindset that, as venture capitalist Fred Wilson has noted, can be difficult to overcome.

“Soon, a startup will have to negotiate a zero rating plan before launching because mobile app customers will be trained to only use apps that are zero rated on their network,” Wilson writes, referring to data plans in the United States "zero-rated" for specific apps.

So the question Zuckerberg ought to be answering is not whether the Internet.org model runs counter to the core tenets of net neutrality. That answer seems obvious. Instead, the question is whether the same rules should apply in places where people don't have access to the Internet at all, let alone equal access. In other words, is it okay to suspend some of the net neutrality absolutism the tech community has rallied behind in the US if it serves a greater good in the world's poorest countries?

Zuckerberg doesn't admit it outright, and of course, he probably never could, considering how the tech world at large feels about net neutrality. But his post makes it clear that he believes the positives of giving people even limited free access to the internet outweigh the concern about playing favorites, when the alternative is no access at all.

"Arguments about net neutrality shouldn’t be used to prevent the most disadvantaged people in society from gaining access or to deprive people of opportunity," he writes. "Eliminating programs that bring more people online won’t increase social inclusion or close the digital divide. It will only deprive all of us of the ideas and contributions of the two thirds of the world who are not connected."