4 ms·

How is it proven not to work just because one or more times it hasn't worked, especially with an example as notable as Facebook on the other side? There are pr

• anoncake 7y ago
  AFAIK Facebook didn't restrict its user base by giving out limited invites but by only admitting certain groups (initially, Harvard students). That's a very different thing. In any case, the world was quite different back then. Facebook didn't have take on Facebook. Still, "proven" is too strong a statement, this isn't mathematics. > but you haven't made a case for that opinion at all. Not everything is a statement of an opinion. Sometimes a question mark indicates a question.
  • corin_ 7y ago
    You're right about how Facebook did it, but I'd describe it as a pedantically different thing, not a very different thing. It's just a different method of artificially restricting who can sign up. And to your edit: "It's proven to not work" seems like a statement, and it's the statement I was responding to. Had you simply asked the question about whether it's a good idea I wouldn't have written my response.
    • anoncake 7y ago
      "Proven" was hyperbole, sorry. I think the difference is significant: Facebook was a place for Harvard students to communicate with other Harvard students. That is useful. Google+ was a place where you could communicate with a random subset of your friends and acquaintances. That's mostly useless. For one-to-one communication it's okay, but a social network is also about group discussions and broadcasting.