And what do you suggest for people who have broader circles of friends all over the world, and/or can't jet-set to visit them all periodically? A platform's utility to you might not equal its utility for others.
Email, text messages, the telephone, and a million other similar services?
I will point out that the parent seems to be referring to the posts that people make to no specific recipient. That is not keeping contact with your friends, this is watching your friend make an appearance on TV, so to speak. Admittedly neat the first time you see it, but the novelty quickly fades when they are "on TV" every day.
Yes, Facebook Messenger and Groups do actually provide a decent service for keeping contact with friends around the world. You can absolutely use Facebook in that way, but, from the perspective of business longevity and health, does it really provide more than similar services that do the same?
Personally, I'm not sure the network effects are as strong when talking about friends keeping in contact with each other. If I want to check in with a close friend who lives abroad, it is not a huge barrier to ask for their phone number or email address. And chances are I already have that information.
The one value proposition that Facebook does have, in my option, is that it is the internet's "telephone book". For acquaintances that you want to contact and have to look them up to find them, it is a pretty good bet that you will find them on Facebook. But there is also plenty of competition here as well, such as Linkedin, which seems to embrace the "telephone book" concept even more so than Facebook.
> Email, text messages, the telephone, and a million other similar services?
Mostly one to one, meaning more time investment if you want to reach a bunch of people with some news. Or maybe a mailing list you'd have to manage (which can be quite a chore thanks to spam). Dependency on high/reliable bandwidth for the video-char route. Again, utility to one might not equal utility to others. Some people have less free time to do everything in the way you or wybiral might, or maybe they just have different preferences. Maybe they actually enjoy seeing two of their friends who would otherwise never meet discover a common interest, or maybe even have a good argument, in the comment thread for something they posted. Maybe they're perfectly happy with "short snippets concurrently mixed together" and would derive less utility from your alternatives. It's awfully judgmental, and even a bit privileged, to assume that you're doing social life right and they're doing it wrong.
> It's awfully judgmental, and even a bit privileged, to assume that you're doing social life right and they're doing it wrong.
There is no right and wrong, but the fact remains that watching a carefully curated TV program featuring your friend is not keeping contact with your friend. It is watching your friend play a role on TV.
Hey, if that makes you happy, I'm not here to judge. It makes no difference to me if someone likes watching TV and is able to feel a connection to the players shown. But I think for most people the novelty of seeing their friend on TV starts to wane over time. I think for most people friendship requires mutual reciprocation and involvement, not glimpses of the person appearing on their TV each night.
Maybe I'm way off base, but from a business perspective, it seems Facebook has to maintain its attractiveness in spaces where competition is already high, and where there is little barrier for users to switch to on a whim. The network effects that have allowed Facebook to become what it is do not seem to be there long-term.
Problem with Facebook is the difficulty of keeping circles separated, resulting in a frequent unwillingness to post. I often am unclear whether a potentially triggering post intended for a limited group will end up being broadly distributed, so often just don't or find another site to converse on.
