&gt; &quot;It also highlights the product&#x27;s highly distributed nature.&quot;<p>As far as I can see, that&#x27;s not why the analogy was used. Clearly my interpretation was not clear enough, so to spell it out:<p>A mission to spread Facebook to those who haven&#x27;t been connected to the Internet yet is not necessarily a noble goal. It is only a noble goal if Facebook is a net positive in people&#x27;s lives. If it is a net negative then spreading Facebook further through a program like Internet.org could do more harm than good. The less problematic features of Internet.org could be seen as the sugar coating on top of a less attractive proposition, parasites that disrupt how people relate to each other.<p>I don&#x27;t use Facebook that much, and I know some that are happy to use it casually, but I also know people who appear to be practically addicted to it. It&#x27;s not too much to ask that we examine whether its benefits outweigh its drawbacks.