It does work as an analogy, because the difference between heroin, and a useful product is that heroin doesn't make your life better. Becoming addicted to heroin means that not using it makes your life worse then using it, even if the net value add is negative.

I often feel the same way about Facebook. I stay on because the cost of disconnecting is too high, not because its particular implementation of 'A social network' for what I pay for it (Time and ad spam) is a net gain.

Sure, but thats not the only reason why the analogy doesn't work. The heroin analogy is B2C. The Facebook discussion is B2B.

Utilising that reasoning the game analogy fails also

I wasn't alluding to cost as in money, though I do agree with others here that you're paying one way or another.

In relation to Facebook user I was alluding to addiction and the way you pay for that addiction.

Yes, but the discussion is about service providers using Facebook's platform, not Facebook's end users.

That's true but you are, hence so was I when replying to you.

I was not, actually. That's why I said it was a bad analogy.

Oh I must have been confused when you said "end-users". But either way I think my analogy stands.

Drugs are not always paid with money. Services like facebook neither.

But maybe drugs is a bit overkill.

Like sugar maybe ?

They are paying with their data and attention to advertisements