The overarching point is arguable even if you don't think Facebook is necessary -- this is subjective and is why I used the term "blurring" and not "blurred." I

The overarching point is arguable even if you don't think Facebook is necessary -- this is subjective and is why I used the term "blurring" and not "blurred." It's certainly the case that platforms like Facebook and Twitter provide examples of what could be on track, if they are not currently, towards becoming privately owned, unregulated, Internet-based, global scale communication networks that anchor our daily lives. Even if those two platforms die off before they reach the tipping point where most would agree membership on the platforms are necessary to operate in society, we should still realize this is a potential eventuality. If you disagree with the core point of this potential outcome, then I'd be interested in the argument, but it certainly seems possible (and I'd argue, likely) that Facebook or a site like Facebook could quickly evolve into something that you need to be connected on to conduct business, interface with the government, get a job, get into school, or in general be connected to society in a way that is not making you "sub human" in a future where the whole world is continually connected via the Internet at all times.