> had they not care about growth, they would not have become a useful public registry that you can use to connect with anyone Agreed. The uptake was predicated

> had they not care about growth, they would not have become a useful public registry that you can use to connect with anyone Agreed. The uptake was predicated on their excellence and strive to growth. But I think there's an argument towards making a base layer of shared services non-profit, and then allowing for-profit companies to build on top and capture most of the value (e.g. ICANN). I think a present where we'd done that might have a healthier (for-profit) Facebook. > app could be better if they cared less about engagement The root of Facebook's evil is that their ad revenue model inherently means engagement = $. And so, whatever their ancillary preferences and morals, they will ultimately do whatever increases engagement (to the brink of public outcry). In a lot of ways, this is like the resource curse of oil, diamonds, etc. Facebook (as a company), as powerful as it is, can't actually make strategic decisions that have a side effect of decreasing engagement.