I also disagree. The "curation" algorithms and other systems clearly have a serious influence. Facebook is not responsible for human nature, but they are responsible for intentionally guiding it for profit and ignoring the consequences. It's not as if Facebook is merely tabula rasa; they meddle.

There have been many examples of executives and engineers who have spoken to this effect:

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-engineer-resigns-tr...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6e1riShmak (Chamath Palihapitiya)

FB is the network of people on your green list, and FB's most pronounced "algorithmic" influence is deciding priority on a feed of your green-listed friends, but ultimately one has to ask -- can you handle your own relations? Are your friends' ideas just way too infectious for your free will to handle?

> Are your friends' ideas just way too infectious for your free will to handle?

Good point, but I'll add: if the ideas they are spreading weren't infectious, they wouldn't be spreading them in the first place.

I've been on FB lately because my local government has decided that it will use FB to give background info and outlooks wrt Covid-19. From what I saw in the local groups, the "ideas" people spread are not original content, ever. They don't have those ideas, they just read them and say "yeah, share", so the ideas that make it to your feed have proven themselves many times to be infectious. There's a reason we call it "going viral".

The difference is though, with the internet evolving, the platforms were figuring out their revenue models, and we can see now which model turned out superior.

AOL aged people still remember A/S/L?

We are simply living in the Eternal September.

Millions, yes. Billions, no.

I seriously doubt there are people out there with billions of people on their contact lists, so why would that matter?

And not all of them combined were as successful as Facebook was at its peak.

By what metric should success be measured for a social platform?