I don't think "helped" is the proper term here. The entire premise is to get people on to facebook and to keep them engaged. Maybe that has some benefits to the user but the real benefit is to Facebook seeing that users are the product and that Facebook's value is tied to how many users are engaged.
Facebook tried this in India and backed off after vocal opposition from internet freedom groups.
Many argued that these groups are being elitist in denying some semblance of internet access and connectivity to those who cannot afford it otherwise. The supporters of government initiatives went so far as to label the critics antinationals or paid by out of state actors to keep India backward.
But the whole way FB planned it was that the users will have a curated and controlled view of internet based on FBs controls.
In essence they wanted a large population to grow up believing Facebook is internet. Also would have given FB the power to charge various sites for the privilege of being allowed on their free plan.
This is very dangerous for a democracy. Even if it is slower to reach everyone a free internet -- as in sans middlemen controlling what you can access -- is the way to go.
At the time of this episode FB enjoyed a much better brand trust. Afterwards the whole 2016 election in US and FB's active and passive role in shaping public opinions has come to light and the enthusiasm for FB sponsored stuff at national scale has been tempered.
