> The idea that this is somehow motivated by unselfish interests by Zuckerberg or FB is laughable. It's not about getting people online, it's about getting them

> The idea that this is somehow motivated by unselfish interests by Zuckerberg or FB is laughable. It's not about getting people online, it's about getting them on FB. It's not clear if Time is aware of this distinction. They misinterpret this as philanthropy. so...did you read the article? I'd suggest reading to at least the "Colonialism 2.0" section before wondering if "Time is aware of this distinction". The section heading is a pretty good clue that they are. From the article: > Ultimately, these points of view don’t exclude each other. Zuckerberg can be both enriching himself and other people, both expanding and consolidating Facebook’s dominance and saving lives, all at the same time. He’s both empowering people (by giving them Internet access) and disempowering them (by making them into consumers and marketing targets). Personally I find the article's take a lot more interesting (and probably closer to the truth) than a knee-jerk response of "zuckerberg had his human parts replaced by robot parts and so only cares about marketshare now".