3 ms·
>That's an argument against anything social-network-like in general, because there's nothing that makes FB uniquely suitable. Then why did they choose FB when
by rhizome 8y ago
>That's an argument against anything social-network-like in general, because there's nothing that makes FB uniquely suitable.
Then why did they choose FB when there are so many other group-chat type websites out there? I mean, Friendster is still around, or LinkedIn, or...
- manfredo 8y agoProbably because it simply has the biggest userbase.
- Apocryphon 8y agoDoesn’t that provide a rationale to promote many different social media networks instead of one big one that could be used for such nefarious purposes?
- m0zg 8y agoIf they're not federated, I don't see how they are useful as "social networks". If they are federated, I don't see how having many of them would solve the problem.
- rhizome 8y agoIsn't that a quality that makes them "uniquely suitable?" I was trying to unwind GP's statement.