This doesn't really make much sense to me...very rich people have their own real-world private social networks already, and unless they're ridiculously wealthy, they probably have lots of not-as-wealthy friends, family members, and acquaintances that they want to keep in touch with too, so now they have to maintain two networks. Seems like they'd just use FB with extra privacy settings or not use anything at all.

Also, I like how both of the exclusive networks for the rich mentioned in sibling comments apparently couldn't afford a .com domain name :)

or small world which has been around for longer than Facebook:

http://www.asmallworld.net

I still haven't received an invite:)

Yes, unfortunately the community is slowing go down hill. You're not missing much. :)

>How about a social network for very rich people?

http://www.affluence.org/

Out of curiosity I spent a bit looking around this site and reading about it. What I found were half-truths, inconsistencies (at least one), broken links, somebody calls it a scam, somebody else calls it legit... very weird, I wouldn't buy into it.

No idea. It's not the only one if I remember correctly. It could be a brilliant social engineering experiment: you make a bunch of wealthy doctors and lawyers believe they are chatting with paris hilton and at the same time you collect info out of juicy targets for scams and thefts.

The rich have had such networks for a long time. They are currently called country clubs.