Right. Everything is social now. The article's argument seems to be a no true scotsman fallacy. Of course there aren't any new facebook clones right now, why cr

Right. Everything is social now. The article's argument seems to be a no true scotsman fallacy. Of course there aren't any new facebook clones right now, why create one? But we've seen instagram grow like crazy (which is why FB bought them) and snapchat and twitch and kik and medium and whatsapp and slack, and so on. Things don't have to look exactly like what the previous generation looked like to fill the same ecological niche. Just look at smartphones and tablets (once derided as toys) as people's daily communication devices versus laptops, desktops, and telephones. Times change. Don't ask "where are the things that look exactly like X social media platform but with different details" (e.g. facebook versus google+) instead ask "where are people spending their social time these days, is it in the same places it's always been or are new places becoming more popular?". Also, to add on to your point about "sub-niches" one thing that facebook lacks is character, even though one of the primary organizing principles for social spaces is unique character and shared interest (look at HN, for example). People organize socially around interests. One easy way to take on a monolith like facebook is to take a stand, carve out a niche, have a unique character and build a sub-niche there.