3 ms·
"So the argument is:" It's an interesting way of looking at it, but there doesn't need to be a more complicated explanation for the eventual fall of Facebook t
by gdulli 13y ago
"So the argument is:"
It's an interesting way of looking at it, but there doesn't need to be a more complicated explanation for the eventual fall of Facebook than the fact that it's always been the pattern for social networks. There's fundamentally more novelty than real value to it so people will lose interest and it will be supplanted by whatever else has the property of being novel. (And lucky, and in the right place at the right time.)
You just don't need something like Facebook to stay connected to your close friends, and the interactions you have with your larger "network" are inherently shallow and capable of being disrupted in the move from one social network to another or disposed of completely.
- scott_s 13y agoit's always been the pattern for social networks. For individual social networks, yes. But what if we lumped all social networks together, and looked at aggregate usage over time? It would constantly increase. I think that instead of dying out, it will plateau until we reach saturation. Other communication technologies follow this model: radio, television, telephones, cell phones, etc. Rather than being a novelty, I think that the past decade has demonstrated that online social networks are something most people want and will continue to use. To be clear, you and I are making contradicting factual predictions about the future. Neither of us knows which prediction will turn out to be true. At the moment, the available data fits both of our predictions. We'll know in about 20 years.