Well you think like that because there is no such a system/protocol/concept yet. User adoption has nothing to with being centralized. Imagine few "big" social p

Well you think like that because there is no such a system/protocol/concept yet. User adoption has nothing to with being centralized. Imagine few "big" social players, implementing that new protocol, and/or forcing each other to implement that as well. I also don't think that this will be "tent.is". They are making the same mistake(like diaspora), they are creating an application instead of designing the unique platform/api/protocol/standart/whatever. If I were google I would create that unique protocol, truly implement it to google plus. Advertise google+ as a open, easy-to-switch social platform. Then, they can easily put pressure on facebook to implement this new thing too. People don't want to be trapped in these social networks with their data. People want to feel that they own and can do whatever they want with their data. If you are trying to create a something new, "looking at what users are used to" is a wrong way to go. If you create something unique, great, and something people find useful, I am sure It will grow quickly. Plus I don't think average joe knew how to use email or facebook when they were first introduced to the world. Again like an email. People own their data. Companies own and create value with their APPs/interfaces. And protocol is open for anyone to implement. Simple mail transfer protocol: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc821 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc821 Internet message format: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322