Regarding the responsibility for user actions. I'm assuming you'd think the same of Facebook in the cases of Myanmar and the Trinidad Tobago cases? I was just trying to hold the original article in estoppel without espousing a specific view, I think it's nuanced with a lot of grey areas.
Absolutely yes, I can say that, because the answer is to pay for unlimited service, not having some websites having free traffic and pay through the nose for all others.
And whatever Meta is doing, will prevent this unlimited service, where I can download 20GB each day and my bill stays the same.
Radio and TV neutrality was a hot political topic at the time as well, the incumbent government was pro-intervention and regulation, so that helped. But the FSF had a big impact, going as far as getting Linux to be installed as a dual boot in state sponsored Notebooks for Kids programs.
The good thing is that the field is a bit more open if anyone wants to dethrone whatsapp, but since they were first movers and they have the network effects now, it seems like almost inconsequential, a contender could have negotiated zero-rating with a carrier anyways and work up from there.
Claiming the platform is responsible for the actions of their users is a bit too much, I oppose to that kind of thinking.
Have you heard about net neutrality?