There is one thing that really stands out in the choice of words in this article that makes me feel strange about it: Estimating the value of Facebook. > [Face

There is one thing that really stands out in the choice of words in this article that makes me feel strange about it: Estimating the value of Facebook. > [Facebook's] benefits are hard to measure The Introduction reads like Facebook was the first of its kind and invented the social web. It's kind of like how mainstream media talk about Apple as the inventor of the smartphone and the tabled. It's as if there was no Facebook or Apple, there would never have been any other actor to take that space in the market. It's like these companies are deities in people's minds. Apple sure has its prophets, but Facebook is probably felt as a more paternalistic and malevolent superego god. I mean, I would not be surprised to see this kind of narrative in some click-driven blog. But in a peer-reviewed research article? If this is really how most people think even in academic circles - that it is Facebook or nothing - then there's a huge disconnect and I have grossly underestimated the amount of awareness-spreading needed if we don't want to fully lose the open web.