I once worked for a social network (dominant demographically and regionally) that was destroyed in a matter of a few months by Facebook coming into the open market. I have a pretty intimate knowledge of how weak these bonds can be. It took a catalyzing event (a major change the users didn't like) to make them truly gone, but in the end they slowly left their (often very creative and interesting) data behind and moved to the better thing.
You still exist as an independent entity. There's no data you have on facebook that you can't possibly do without. And you almost certainly concurrently exist on several social networks.
I'm not really sure how you can try to argue that this is a similar kind of 'lock-in' to the fact that there is only one distributor for any piece of content and they control that distribution online pretty much right to my TV. Social networks are nothing like that.
> There's no data you have on facebook that you can't possibly do without.
There's also no "content" (movies, music, etc.) that you can't possibly do without. (I, personally, do do without, in the case of both Facebook and movies, music, etc. with DRM.) Just as you can pick a different social network provider if you don't like Facebook (or, in the extreme, give up social networks altogether if none of them will give you what you want, as I do), you can pick a different content provider if you don't like the ones that try to control distribution (or, in the extreme, give up online "content" altogether if no providers will give you what you want, as I do).
But if you want to interact with particular people online, and they're all on Facebook, you have to use Facebook, just as if you want to watch a particular movie, and it's only available from one provider, you have to use that provider. And in both cases, the incumbent can make it very, very difficult to switch if they control enough of the market. (In the social network case you describe, you say the original provider was "dominant demographically and regionally", but that basically translates to "not as dominant as Facebook". Did people really switch because Facebook gave a better experience, or because it connected them to a larger network?) The lock-in dynamics work the same either way.
I don't think you're actually arguing with any points I'm making. I agree with everything in your second paragraph.
But you started this conversation talking about the data facebook holds that locks you in. Relationship data is trivially rebuildable (and often benefits from periodic culling anyways), so that leaves the more concrete data like pictures and posts. Those are important, but most people seem to treat them pretty much as ephemeral in practice.
So at this point I don't really know what you're arguing or why you're arguing with me. Yes, the people are the important thing in a social network. Where they go you go. If your friends all go somewhere else, you will follow them. Where this differs from films or television is that, unlike films and televisions, your friends can two-time another network that offers a different value proposition until the network effects catch up. I've seen this happen personally, and that was my original point.
And just to clarify on this:
> ou say the original provider was "dominant demographically and regionally", but that basically translates to "not as dominant as Facebook"
When I talk about facebook coming on to the open market, I mean literally in the 6 months or so after people who didn't go to an accredited university could use it. At the beginning of that we were, within that region, absolutely more dominant than facebook (obviously). We were much more dominant than myspace (less obvious, and we were very proud of it) even. We were the #1 social network in that region hands down.
At the end of that 6 month period the network effect had completely shifted to them and people were visiting our site once a month who previously visited several times a day. When we changed things up, they just stopped coming rather than bother learning how to use the new stuff.
> you started this conversation talking about the data facebook holds that locks you in
Yes, in response to you saying that the analogy with social networks was weak. I was pointing out that, while the specific mechanism of lock-in may differ, the underlying logic appears to me to be the same in both cases.
> Relationship data is trivially rebuildable (and often benefits from periodic culling anyways)
I think this depends on the person.
> that leaves the more concrete data like pictures and posts. Those are important, but most people seem to treat them pretty much as ephemeral in practice.
Do they? Or do they just, without thinking about it, assume that the content will always be there on Facebook (or wherever), so they don't have to worry about managing it themselves, backing it up, etc.? My money is on the latter.
This, btw, is another way in which the analogy between movies, music, etc. and social networks is a good one: in both cases, people seek short-term satisfaction without stopping to think of the longer-term effects of their actions, on both them and society. The result is that people end up locked into a walled garden that gets more and more difficult to escape without giving up the activity altogether.
> Where this differs from films or television is that, unlike films and televisions, your friends can two-time another network that offers a different value proposition until the network effects catch up.
But that means they haven't really switched networks; they're just using two instead of one. Similarly, people can get content from more than one provider.
> At the end of that 6 month period the network effect had completely shifted to them
Why was that? That's the key question I was asking. Was it because FB actually delivered a better user experience, or just because FB gave them access to a larger network?
You still exist as an independent entity. There's no data you have on facebook that you can't possibly do without. And you almost certainly concurrently exist on several social networks.
I'm not really sure how you can try to argue that this is a similar kind of 'lock-in' to the fact that there is only one distributor for any piece of content and they control that distribution online pretty much right to my TV. Social networks are nothing like that.