Facebook has renamed Internet.org to Free Basics

Facebook has done some controversial things in its time, but Internet.org may be one of the most widely-debated. The app and mobile website are supposed to bring free Internet access to more than four billion people, which sounds good on paper, but Internet.org has been criticized numerous times for violating net neutrality by only offering free access to certain services and websites, such as Facebook’s own products. The initiative has since expanded to include eligible third-party apps and websites in order to address some of these concerns, and in order to better distinguish between the initiative and the Internet.org app and mobile website, Facebook has renamed them to Free Basics. 

Facebook is rebranding its most prominent—and controversial—effort to connect the unconnected. Today the company said it will change the name of its Internet.org app and mobile website, now available to mobile phone users in 18 countries, to Free Basics by Facebook. The change is intended to better distinguish the app and website from Internet.org, the larger initiative that spawned it and is incubating many technologies and business models to help get the web to new users faster. The rebranding announcement comes days before Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to visit Facebook’s campus, an event that will be aired on prime time television in India on Sunday. Free Basics, née Internet.org, has faced a global backlash that began in India last April. Several Indian web publishers pulled out of the program, which lets some publishers offer pared-down versions of services to users free through a Facebook-built app. They worried that Facebook was conspiring with mobile carriers to determine which websites qualified for inclusion. They said this violated the principles of net neutrality—the idea Internet providers should treat all online service the same. The criticism gained momentum in May when nearly 70 advocacy groups released a letter to Zuckerberg protesting Internet.org, arguing it violated net neutrality principles and stirred security concerns.