4 ms·

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 artif

by 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.