Network effects around facebook mean it is far more expensive for people's social lives to use those highways.

If by "expensive" you mean having to make 2 more clicks for some action, or installing 5 apps instead of one - then I argue that it's not that important to people to use those other highways in the first place. That's just not a high price to pay for anyone who cares about not being on facebook. If they are not willing to pay it, it is an indication that they just don't care. It seems that tech people have a hard time to realize this: most people are fine with facebook, knowing all its evils.

And of course the other platforms, they should keep improving and bringing those number of clicks down, and polishing up the UI, etc. But I just mean that they are already up there in terms of usability, at least in the same league.

PS. Heck, people can't even be bothered to spend 5 minutes listening about and 5 clicks installing adblock/ublock... I suppose that's Zuckerberg's fault too. /s

Expensive doesn't mean "two extra clicks". It means convincing all of your friends and family to use a new platform. Facebook's network effects impose very high switching costs.

That's one reason your "free choice" defense of Facebook is inadequate. Yes, people "choose" to use Facebook. Yes, they are techncially free to stop using it. But, when the cost is high, is the choice really free?

If an individual's social and professional life depends on a platform because that's what everyone else uses, they cannot in practice switch to another platform even if that is their preference. You might as well argue that someone from a disfunctional family gets a new family. Or that someone living in a disfunctional state emigrates. They can do these things in theory, but in practice they are not completely free to do them.

This. Lack of interoperability is what keeps people from moving to another platform.

A mandated API for interoperability would go a long way. Just like with e-mails. We expect people with Gmail addresses to be able to get in contact with someone who does not have Gmail.

Post grand kid photos else where. Grandmas will follow.

Turned off my Facebook for awhile. Losing access to photos about caused a family riot.

As someone who once used facebook, maybe a decade ago, but currently does not, I can confidently say I've seen little to no social expense to not using it. My real friends and family keep me abreast of the important things that are happening offline, and I get to skip the rest that happens on Facebook, which is essentially noise, baby pictures, and toxic politics.

I think it's almost entirely FOMO that is keeping people on these horrible "social" platforms. Best decision of my life was to leave.

You say FOMO as if it's a trivial thing, and not a deeply influential aspect of the human psyche.

And that's Zuckerberg's fault too, that people have it? Demonizing much?

It seems like you're attacking a point you made for the person you're replying to instead of anything in their actual comment here.

Nobody's looking for "less clicks" when choosing social media platforms. The product sold by a social media platform is its network of users. There are many alternative services out there that may be functionally equivalent or superior to the most popular platforms, but absent the powerful network externality that Facebook and the like provides, those competitors can't be counted as replacement goods at all.