I think he is right if I am understanding him correctly. He is not saying what is best for a person but he is saying what is best for the advancement and growth of the game. If someone who never saw poker being played before walked up to a table of nine people that never said a word to each other, never smiled, all played tight with no real action
hands, then what would that newbie to the
poker game think? He/She would see the game as boring and mind numbing.
If instead the new person walked up to a table and saw smiling people looking to be having fun, hearing table banter back and forth with many bets, calls, and raises they would see an exciting game.
I fit none (except the losing money lol) of Daniel's traits that are good for poker so I will challenge his thoughts in this way. In his eyes then,
online poker is terrible for the game because no one is talking to one another, and no one is probably sitting there smiling at their screen. However, online poker in my opinion has done more to spread the game to new people than anything else. It continues to grow the game and make it accessible to almost all with it being available in your own house and very low buy ins and all skill levels.