Because, in the end it would cost a fortune? Imagine that, most people only pay for one content provider. A social network is not a content provider, just a di

Because, in the end it would cost a fortune? Imagine that, most people only pay for one content provider. A social network is not a content provider, just a different kind of social network. If you cannot afford a subscription of some social network, you miss out. And that's not acceptable in terms of social life of a human being. Rich folks would be able to roam all networks, poor people wouldn't. So, if you only can afford some "cheap" networks, the whole thing ceases to make sense, as soon as you are barred from accessing other networks. Exclusiveness in social media is an oxymoron. See where this is going?