That measure is so subjective I'd be surprised if it was ever clear cut. You could argue circles with coal, oil, FB, beer, various drugs, fancy rocks. All are double-edged swords (the handle is also a sword (and it's on fire))
Indeed not always, and there certainly can be an observer effect, but the answer re. Facebook is very clear cut.
In any case I've found it preferable to "does this corporate entity create shareholder value?", which I must confess I was suckered by some rather Austrian-school economists into accepting as a valid proxy for human advancement and/or happiness in my mid-thirties.
Out of curiosity, why does the condition "without egregious side effects" exist? Aren't egregious side effects already factored ibto the "net benefit" calculation?
My moral compass says, don't harm individuals for the greater good.
I should add, you're not wrong to question the necessity of including the second part. It is most certainly a factor. There's a natural justice strand in the formulation of Benthamite utilitarianism (which is, broadly speaking, where I'm coming from) that reinforces an enlightened approach to individual consequences, since in the long run the absence of individual justice poisons the greater good anyway.
However that's a bit of a mouthful, and it does need surfacing because there are other formulations of utilitarianism that lead to dystopian nightmare societies, and besides, I'm rather fond of the word egregious.
However I do regret forgetting to riff on the laws of robotics in the phrasing
