I like the article as it sparks discussion. However, I do not agree with the author regarding the value proposition of Facebook. I don't think Facebook belongs to the category of equal-access-with-data-sacrifice for the following reasons.

1. To be in that category, the service that is granted equal access must be of great importance. One fitting example is access to the Internet. I would be fine with a company providing free Internet access in exchange for some personal data. Yet Facebook's service is not that essential, at least in the Western countries, so it shouldn't be considered a candidate for that category. That said, Facebook's role in other countries, such as Myanmar, seems to be more justified to be in that category. As far as I know, Facebook pays for free Internet access as long as smartphone sold there has Facebook as a default app (they have successfully created the illusion that Facebook = Internet). Of course this had led to other even more atrocious crimes, but that is out of the scope of this discussion.

2. A business in that category has tremendous power. Thus it must be regulated and executed with great caution. How much data sacrifice is justified for equal access to any service must be studied, debated, and heard by the public. Yet, Facebook has never done this before, and likely will never do so in the future.

3. If equal access is the value proposition, then that should be the focus of the company. Yet Facebook's focus is mining more data and engineering more addicting features to win the attention war. Such focus has nothing to do with providing equal access to an essential service.

I bet some advisor of Mr. Zuckerbug's must have suggested this equal-access-with-data-sacrifice talking point. But I guess even he himself couldn't make a speech about it with a straight face. He'd rather attack Apple from a monopolist angle than standing on a shaky moral high ground and receiving backlashes for white-washing his business model.