I don't think that's true.
We can substitute (no internet + desire for internet) in for the right side, and I think that's better than (some internet + lessened desire for full internet)
We can substitute (no internet + desire for internet) in for the right side, and I think that's better than (some internet + lessened desire for full internet)
Result: Yes, some internet is better than no internet.
Nowadays, where I stopped using facebook mostly, I just buy like the tiniest data package my provider supports, wait for it to throttle to 64kbps, and just use IRC, the web without JS, etc.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/fast-and-free-facebo...
</nitpick>
There are no perfect options, only trade offs. FB can provide a service, and if people don't use it, fine. But, let them decide.
If they were providing full internet, that would be an incredibly charitable, generous, and positive thing. As it stands, it's just another business venture - which is fine, but not great.
This is so far removed from the truth. What about blogs? Academic papers? Journalistic articles? Mailing list threads? Even paper books!
The name "Internet.org" is grossly misleading. "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Willingly giving a service effective control of the present yields dastardly results.