> "We recommend you connect with Facebook to read, discuss and debate this article on PostDesk. Log In with Facebook. Don't have Facebook? Log In or create an account manually."

(User presses close button and moves on.)

Is that what all that white space in the article was? With Adblock on, it rendered very oddly.

"Facebook will disappear in the next 5 years – but more importantly, here’s what will replace it We speak to the analyst, Eric Jackson ..... In the piece, entitled ‘Here’s why Google and Facebook might completely disappear in the next five years‘, Jackson writes"

why let a qualifier get in the way of a good headline.

What's marvelous about this article is the size of the Popups and slide-ins demanding that you sign in with facebook before reading the article...

I came here to say exactly this! They even have a "Connect with Facebook" button and pitch above everything else! Genius!

tl;dr: facebook can't handle the shift to mobile. now please login with facebook to read more

An article about what I assume to be a FB killer that requires a FB login. Yep.

Edit: Oh, and it also has a grammatical error in the subhead ("it's"). moves on

I will not read anything which demands that I log in with Facebook. I don't have a Facebook account, and have no intention of obtaining one.

Uhm... from the website: "Don't have Facebook? Log In or create an account manually."

There is also a "continue without logging in" link.

Was there any content in that article at all? Any evidence that facebook won't go "more mobile"?

None. Its completely facile. A link-bait promotion piece for some second-rate analyst.

"Facebook is likely to disappear is the next, third generation of the web - which will be dominated by 'mobile', simply because mobile is not in it's DNA."

This doesn't mean anything. Theres nothing there.

Facebook has a lot of money and smart people. If mobile is getting big then those smart people will use that money to hire people that understand mobile and build-out products using mobile technology. Thats all.

Maybe they'll be successful, maybe they wont. But inventing some concept of metaphorical corporate DNA that can somehow have mobile 'in it' is just idiotic.

Is this guy an analyst or an oracle? The way he predicts all this gloom and doom, with the gory details of how the killer would emerge and how facebook will fail to detect it, etc etc all sounds like some judgement day crap.

Nostradamus thou hath reborne.

I really wish people would stop talking about MySpace like it was some great thing that was going to be as big as Google or Amazon, and that the implosion took everyone by surprise. It wasn't.

They're just saying that based on the hype that all their teenage children made back when MySpace was their thing and it's "style as you want" method made for horrible page after horrible page made for teens.

That site will disappear in the next few months, and will be replaced with something less obnoxious.

Posted for the irony, I suppose.

Blaming problems on DNA is lazy for both people and companies. We have higher mental faculties to surpass the shortcomings of our DNA and "human nature", the scapegoat that everyone loves, and Zuckerberg has teams of people with higher mental faculties (higher than most) to shore up Facebook's mobile strategy.

Besides, what does DNA even mean for companies? Nintendo started out in Japan almost 100 years before the NES was launched. I'm sure that had this analyst been there when the NES launched, he would've dismissed it as a product doomed to fail because video games were not in Nintendo's "DNA".

Linkbait is what this article was.