The value of a piece of tech is not determined by the number of users, but by a change in the quality-of-life a user of the technology receives. Meaning "value"

The value of a piece of tech is not determined by the number of users, but by a change in the quality-of-life a user of the technology receives. Meaning "value" varies from individual to individual. Companies should focus on the individuals that they bring the most value too. Probably what pisses people off about the "arrogance" of companies like Facebook is in their claims of bringing value to everyone (who uses their product -- and sometimes beyond). Which is not true (and is arrogant/obnoxious). Also, Facebook is not the only company to have this attitude. Companies building something for the long-term are certainly not claiming value for anyone in the present (SpaceX is not claiming to be significant in your life now). But once their inventions (rockets, cures, transportation, etc.) are actually bringing benefits to the mass majority of humanity, then they have the right to brag. But, the climatic 'era of benefit' from an invention usually comes after the inventors/founders have died. Edison's and Tesla's ambitions bring far more value today then they did in their time. On the other hand, Facebook will very likely 'die as a fad' within 5-10 years. In other words, the greatest figures/companies (should) appear very humble in their day. So did Facebook change humanity? Did Reddit change Humanity? Yes, they are a temporary perturbation on the 'average state of human condition' over the grand scale of time. But, other inventions bring much longer-lasting benefits/changes to a greater number of people. Those are the inventions that people classify as truly "changing the world". Those are the inventions that should be worked on more so than the 'perturbative' & temporary world changers. We are not seeing that. It's a reflection on the abysmal failures of humanity (in its entirety) rather than on any sub-set (Silicon Valley) or individual.