It is almost certainly beneficial for each individual in the short term - having some sort of connection is better than having no connection. However, the value for that group of people over time is less obvious, as they will be incentivised  to remain within the Facebook-controlled garden, rather than being free to choose how to direct their time and money.<p>It isn&#x27;t much more than an attempt at monopoly, and I think it seems more egregious because of it being explicitly targeted at the poor. In truth, it seems unlikely to me that those people won&#x27;t simply be able to migrate to other services when they can afford it, but I also find it hard to believe that there won&#x27;t be some (possibly significant) monopolisation effect.<p>For some additional perspective, here&#x27;s a view from India: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=W0w_YhZUYeA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=W0w_YhZUYeA</a>