>If all they wanted was to make money, then there would be ads all over the place, instead of the few, limited places at the moment But then people would hate

>If all they wanted was to make money, then there would be ads all over the place, instead of the few, limited places at the moment But then people would hate the site even more than they do now, and would leave. They aren't doing it out of some altruistic desire to "change the world", they are just not total morons who are willing to kill their cash cow for a short term profit. >Facebook has 1,000,000,000 users now, that kind of scaling isn't cheap, you want a large social network with all of your friends which you can use 24/7, completely free (cost for your internet, etc, aside) and that isn't sustainable without the website making money somehow Yes it is, there is no reason at all that one company needs to be running it. A distributed social network would work fine.