This excerpt is telling:
Facebook is “the teenage version of email,” said danah boyd, an assistant researcher at New York University specializing in youth and social media. “What’s so interesting about Facebook is that it’s not interesting to [teens]. That’s a big challenge for Facebook -- not because people won’t use it, but when they’re not passionate about it, you see a very different kind of user behavior than when someone is passionate about a service.”

Does this mean Facebook won't go away any time soon but it will increasingly lose relevance? Does this stress the need for additional acquisitions and the development of an AdSense-like competitor?

It is interesting that so few of our peers discuss Tumblr as well.

A friend of mine recently told me her cousin (who was 16 at the time) asked her to review his college app/resume. He said he sent it and she waited and waited checking her e-mail inbox. He Facebooked it to her. That about sums it up.

I've seen that. The campaign to defeat the anti-LGBT amendment in our state leaned heavily on FB messaging for college students and ambassadors who said they hated email.

What do you think that means for Facebook's future though? If it is just an email replacement and not a world changer... or is that a world changer by itself?

I genuinely don't think Facebook can replace e-mail. So that makes it neither a world changer or a game changer haha.

In that case, you must be shorting the stock! What are the world changers? Twitter? Tumblr?

Something new?

BTW, what do you think of Branch?

Twitter is a world changer for me. I used to be all about Facebook and find myself checking much less often now. It feels slow compared to Twitter. Incredibly slow. My social world has moved entirely from Facebook to Twitter. That's a pretty important movement for me.

I love Branch!

Ben Smith argued that Facebook is for emotion and also serves as an address book while Twitter is a news service and quick moving conversation platform. That feels right.

Both of them are emotional outlets for me, but yes, they definitely do operate differently.

What do you think of Tumblr as a platform? Any reaction to Medium?

I've been debating internally, and externally, what the landscape is going to look like and what is the next evolution.

I break it down the evolution thus far as:
Points of entry
Portal - Search - Social

How people have utilized the platforms
Consume - Create - Curate

What's next? Building quality and trust?

Thanks for inviting me.

Facebook: I see it by now that it is increasingly pulling in those people who have stayed away from it. I am talking about the older demographics and those who are generally not tech-savvy. I recall the same happening with the email platforms of Yahoo and Hotmail. I think these are the signs that Facebook is at the edge of vast number of people moving on from it.

Branch/Medium: I mentioned yesterday on Twitter that these look like a powerful platforms by powerful people who are supposedly trying to make a big difference. The fact is, as far as I am concerned, Twitter has been a one-way link-sharing platform. So a new platform just for conversation but connected to link-sharing, is a great sign. I don't have access to Medium yet but I've been saying for a while that Wordpress and rest of the other blogging tools have not done anything substantive to evolve further.

I like Branch due to the way that the conversations are setup. I hope that over time they open it up to allow for more public discussions and discovery — as well as a public profile feature at some point.

Facebook is more personal than twitter for me. I use twitter for wit, banter, philosophy & links. It is instant & fleeting, always good fun. I don't use my full identity on twitter & it's difficult to maintain a detailed conversation with the limited DM functions so if I want to communicate in more detail I'll direct my twitter friends to facebook. My facebook posts are usually about my personal life, mainly status updates that include my location. I do feed my tweets to facebook but they're only available to my fb friends that don't use twitter. However, if my fb friends used email I wouldn't bother with fb at all.

Ben Smith argued that Facebook is for emotion while Twitter functions as a news wire and live chat platform which I largely agree with. I am most excited to see how Branch, Quora, etc develop over time.

The problem, for me, is that I do not enjoy Facebook as I once did and as it becomes more visual, it feels more like MySpace once did.

When it comes to conversations, Twitter was very promising in the early days, but over time, Twitter has been clearly led to become a media and advertising company. For an average Joe, I believe it is still the best one-way link sharing system but that's about it. I personally don't like to have conversations on Twitter because you have to spend extra time in thinking how to word sentences so they fit within the context of an individual tweet.

I am old school paranoid about revealing identities on the Internet so I don't even share too much through Facebook (which I don't trust obviously). However, I still use Facebook as a personal space, versus Twitter, which is an open space. I do wonder how Branch and Medium will pan out in the future. I am honestly looking for a platform where you can converse authentically without worrying about marketers, spammers and trolls...and of course, all without compromising your private life.

Thank's for inviting me. I think FB is a stage - stage of life - people try to draw an image they'd like to be. FB is the relaunch of the older platforms of coupling. You put on your sweetest photos, you "like" posts which relate to your "role". People try to get more and more friends. Every post deals with the role the user wants to show. Twitter is only information, short and in time. Branch is some kind of TED..... a realtime discussion about things/facts we are concerned with.

@Arif - the promise of Branch is to merge the real time nature of Twitter with the ability to have conversations of length and in context.

@Sabine - astute comparisons. Branch could become something deeper with a layer of profiles and a broader discovery platform IMO. We'll see how this develops! I can't wait to see what happens.

Thanks. I have started with Branch today, will see how it goes. I wish to see a live branch which discusses how it works, what is possible, etc (and why something isn't possible). I'm not a VCR manual reading type of guy so I won't be spending time watching their video intros and I noticed that there isn't a FAQ and Support as of yet.

Branch about the longevity of Facebook here branch.com

I find it really interesting that Facebook is no longer "cool" with kids. And I would even go further to say lumping anything in the same category as E-Mail (something extremely mundane and un-cool) is very telling. I don't think the purpose of Facebook was ever to replace or be synonymous with E-Mail.

When I joined Facebook (i no longer use it) i was extremely excited about it. And through College it was a great way to keep up with friends i didnt see every day and also check on the relationship status of girls.

No ads, no farms, no chat, no crap. As i mentioned on the aforementioned branch, i think the public valuation of Facebook is tanking and will continue to do so.

Like others have said here, it feels to me like FB's jumping the shark. Like Chris, I was super excited about FB in the beginning, and I'm not one that has complained about every change; The Hacker Way doesn't bother me.

But it's solely a place to share my photos and short anecdotes with family, and a place to share an occasional meme. I don't want to get super-personal/emotive, and I don't really want to 'stay' there. Most people I know have described similar feelings about FB--they either feel resentful, or obligated, or both, but no one is excited about it.

I guess one of the questions is -- will FB remain part of the fabric of social existence, or be replaced? I love what I see of Branch and Medium.

Thanks for the invite!

@Kristen - I believe that Facebook will remain important for a few reasons but the Open Graph, address book/contacts and messaging are key to the survival of the service long after it is cool. I wrote a blog on why recently: newkind.com

For my one of the major handicaps of facebook is that it is very slightly dynamic. I do not believe that it does not have very much future unless it develops other services to his users different the one that it has of games inclines in the network. Thanks

@Antonio - what services do you mean? Additional features similar to FB groups?

It has to become better at mobile but I am not sure that it can regain the cool factor. It might should consider additional acquisitions and/or even incubating projects like Instagram and build on the FB social DNA pipeline.

I don't think Facebook is the teenage version of email. I think a better comparison would be AOL. Like AOL in the late 90s with its software "was" the internet for many people. The problem that FB is going to face is the same AOL did. It needs to find a way to adapt to its users changing taste and expectations. Just as millions people abandoned AOL walled garden for the open web so will FB in due time.

For as much as we like being connected people also like their time alone. All the sharing on FB is great except that now people know more about each other than ever before; that is not always such a good thing. People are learning that FB has its limitations and pitfalls.

But isn't the messaging feature and address book one of the key factors keeping people there? If people are primarily using it for that reason then it is becoming more like a new iteration of email and that is the driving factor for loyalty.

Not necessarily. I have seen a shift in people's attitude towards it. For example my wife has turned off chat and said recently that for the first time in years she could see herself closing her account. She says it is nothing more than a social calendar to her now.

Is Facebook "fixable" then? Or are they beyond saving? Can they have a course correction?

Can it be fixed, maybe. they will change course and likely become a behind the scenes platform integrated into the very web. i just cannot see them remaining in the forefront while bringing together so many different groups who benefit from keeping their distance. eg parents/teens employer/employees

I see their long term future for profitability as being a behind the scenes platform. I wonder if their vision and hubris will allow that to happen though, I'd love to hear additional thoughts.

Facebook is going to die. What made it popular in the first place, in large part its exclusivity, is gone. Its flooded with ads and annoying games. Actual information that is interesting or useful is drowned out by all the crap around it. I closed mine and havent looked twice in over a year.

There is a lot of value to be had from FB the problem is that as a society we might not be ready or willing to pay the price for it.

@Chris - But what about scale? Facebook has staying power because EVERYONE is on there. The same with Twitter.

Is it possible to scale a large community platform and maintain the "cool" factor?

Instagram was doing just that and fb felt threatened.

Idk... Everyone was on MySpace to some extent. All people want is something exciting, cool, and new. I think the definite problem is how to keep your users interested once you have them all. And flooding them with ads and spam is not the way to do it.

@Chris, agree with what you're saying above, but the fact that Facebook has pretty much everyone on it (registered users) and the fact that this social-networking company has stocks, suggest that they're here for long, long time. Now it wouldn't matter if people stop using it altogether, or don't even sign up further.

Right. But where does the value in Facebook come from? Its the perception that because there are so many users, I can leverage the exposure with ads for my company. How many ads have you clicked on through facebook? I used it for 5 years and cant remember clicking a single one. I believe thats part of the reason the stock is tanking. And if something new came along, even if people still had their facebooks the limited value from exposure is even smaller....

The value proposition for marketers is the vast amount of relevant data that FB can provide. If people have accounts but are highly inactive or do not interact with the open graph in a meaningful way then why would anyone want to advertise on FB? Large numbers of users only means that FB decline might be a slow process. myspace still gets quite a deal of unique visitors every month.

Long term I think that FB has the biggest problem in mobile where they are just another app, and one that can easily be ignored. Where their traditional ad products do not translate as well.

i think there is a perceived value in the user base of facebook that is an illusion... I have serious doubts as to whether the advertisers are actually seeing results

There is value in the data. The question is whether or not the ad products work. Simply because the ads are relevant to a person and their interests does not mean that they are likely to interact with them.

Had to come back and tell you guys that a friend of mine in his 40s just posted this to FB: "My newsfeed is full of advertisements - this feels like Myspace."

Very telling, IMO.

Two things:
1. The data becomes far more relevant if they open up the data to launch a Facebook version of AdSense that spreads throughout the web.
2. People actually look forward to advertising in "traditional media" sometimes. It is part of the experience and the web hasn't captured that same feeling. The ads are ugly, intrusive and/or lack the ability to grab your attention.

I'm not sure that anyone has gotten it right and so far Facebook has not shown an ability to do so.

Seems like Google got it right. It is all a matter of when and where. Ads when I'm looking for something I might buy is one thing. It is quite another to see sponsored stories based on a like in the middle of me catching up on what my friends did over the weekend.

The sponsored stories seem to have a quality ROI but are hurting the user experience. That is one of their challenges with mobile.

Facebook for me only works because of its groups. I am still into old fashioned listserv social-networking, and Facebook groups do provide quality return on time invest because they are Topics/Interest based. The real social network is based on topics and interest, and this is one reason why I am not comfortable with Branch's composition of threads and requiring specific people in To field. It seems the model here is based on the Followers and not Topics/Interest. So I am not hopeful about it as of yet.

I recommended that they consider topic/interest tagging and a connecting/following model.

Private branches with a landing page could serve as one way to build a listserv style place, right?

I am still not clear on the use case of private branches. I think first they have to figure out why "I" would come here to converse in the first place. Secondly, they have to figure out why I would "bring" my already established community elsewhere to come over to Branch (assuming they don't expect majority of their users to start a fresh because that's almost impossible now). Thirdly, they have to figure out how I would "sustain" here as a member on the Branch with all my interests.

Once they have these substantive points figured out, only then I would feel utilizing the private branches. Ultimately, it is all about trust.

What kind of use case do you see here for private branches?

If you could white label, including a Branch profile with login via FB or Twitter connect, then it would serve as a useful communications/community tool for internal discussions. At least I believe that it could.

So how would it be different then Facebook groups which already has the user-base and all the necessary tools to secure the group/conversation?

It isn't Facebook for those who don't want to be on Facebook, for one thing.

Valid point although private Branches do not seem to be in the product pipeline, adding messaging could help build a private message component at any rate.

Why hasn't LinkedIn come up in this Branch?

The winner will be a platform that can combine the social aspects of facebook, with the instant news updates of twitter and the business networking platform of linked in. We don't need 3 different social networks / accounts... its ridiculous. Someone will come along and put it all together.

LinkedIn serves a very specific market, professional networking. Their goals do not necessarily align themselves with those of FB/email.

@chris dewitt the problem is, i may not want them to be all together.

Would the ability to create separate profiles and circling, ala G+, work well to manage what Chris DeWitt is discussing?

If social networking goes open source and we have DNA that guides multiple services, like email, would that make a difference?

I am not sure that combining them into one service would work — creating an open source pipeline that prevents multiple accounts, etc might though.

I am no fan of unified platform, or a unified single-person stream. I favor purpose-built independent and distinct platforms. For example, and depending on your individual use, the Facebook serves a good purpose of networking with your close friends and family. Twitter on the other hand serves a good purpose of networking with the world. However, Facebook pretends that it caters to everything and everyone (I don't get that feeling from Twitter) and ultimately, every other aspiring platform attempts to provide everything for everyone (Google+ is in the same league).

I think this is why these platforms leave us unsatisfied because they all want us to do everything under the sun.

You can possibly see why the BBS forums took off because most of their implementation (if they were successful) were providing subject subject umbrella. So did the independent chatting clients, not forgetting the IRC, MIRC etc. There wasn't one BBS forum, nor was there one Chat. The diversity of platforms was working well for us....of course until Facebook showed up.

@nick right, but the platform could be such that you dont have to see the pieces you dont want.

Though no longer a teenager, I am 25, I can say I never use e-mail for personal conversation. My friends do not check their email unless they are actually expecting something. I believe we tend to use the mode of conversation that has the great chance of being read and quickly. That mode would be texting. Texting people for me seems to personal, so next to that is facebook, which also tells me if you read the message.

how many of you have friends who have now migrated over to facebook chat and abandoned other chat clients like msn etc? i find that i do not log on to msn any more cos the important people for me can be reached on my book of faces ;)

I use FB chat, gChat and iMessage primarily.

I thought Bilton was dead on today:
- People are initially addicted to FB, but it begins to grow old
- People are fatigued by Twitter due to overload, and then become hooked

Thoughts?

@nation Hahn yup, fb chat is primarily used by the new teens these days as they don't really know about MSN. FB is all they know for a few years now.