I don't see the problem
I had a look at the terms for the Free Basics programme. It seemed the only conditions were understandable technical ones (i.e. size of images, etc.). There didn't seem to be any political stance to it - if your site met the technical constraints then it would be included.
So surely people who care about getting content available to poorer people who maybe can't otherwise afford an internet connection should be embracing it and updating existing, or creating new, services which meet those technical criteria and getting them into the program rather than just throwing their toys out the pram because it doesn't fit into some net-neutrality utopia.
It might be that the content available already is biased towards Facebook's goals (they are funding it after all), but the solution to that is surely to get more content onto it rather than just getting it banned. It's not perfect but surely it's better than banning it outright?
Of course I may have just got the wrong end of the stick...