[SpaghettiCat]

The good they've done is fill the demand of 1/6 of the world's population who use the site.

> So far the data seems to indicate that internet.org is comparable to releasing swarms of burrowing parasites upon the poorest of the world.

Haven't a clue what you mean by this analogy.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Haven't a clue what you mean by this analogy."

The analogy is used because the benefit of Facebook as a tool to improve social relations is questionable.

EDIT: For those downvoting, feel free to tell me why you disagree.

[roymurdock]

I didn't downvote, but you failed to explain how Facebook's product could figuratively resemble a swarm of burrowing parasites.

The original author is trying to hint at his perception of Facebook as a time/energy leech, and its ability to become deeply ingrained in someone's life, to the point where the person might not even realize they're carrying such a leech around. It also highlights the product's highly distributed nature.

Seems a bit macabre and dramatic to me, but there you go.

[ZenoArrow]

> "It also highlights the product's highly distributed nature."

As far as I can see, that's not why the analogy was used. Clearly my interpretation was not clear enough, so to spell it out:

A mission to spread Facebook to those who haven'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'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.

I don'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's not too much to ask that we examine whether its benefits outweigh its drawbacks.