That's short-sighted. They could have easily opened up the social graph, while maintaining the largest node within the graph. Instead, the social graph will o

That's short-sighted. They could have easily opened up the social graph, while maintaining the largest node within the graph. Instead, the social graph will open without them, and they'll find themselves clamoring to catch up, just like AOL did with e-mail and the web. So, long term, not being idealistic, and keeping their users within a walled garden, will show itself to also be a bad business decision. Businesses will control their business model, but that means we must critique their business model and build open alternatives (which I've been doing), instead of just accepting their actions uncritically. And sure, they bring huge net value to society. With that kind of money and success, it'd be hard not to. My argument is that they don't bring nearly enough net value to society as they could, given their resources.