Exactly we have open source social network already. Nobody cares about Diaspora.
Because at the end of the day user experience is order of magnitudes more important than some arbitrary geek obsession with being open. Which isn't important for most people since they are used to having their personal information owned by third parties e.g. banks, employers, insurance companies, government.
A centralized network of discoverable real names does a better job of facilitating in-person relationships than any of the distributed, pseudonymous networks we've seen. User experience is definitely key.
You hit a really important point here: 3rd parties have held personal information since the dawn of civilization: messengers, small-town post offices, the US Mail, Ma Bell, stores that tracked purchases against your line of credit in a ledger, etc.
A computer using keywords in my emails to display relevant advertising is orders of magnitude less scary than a town gossip who runs the post office and tells my extended family and neighbors anytime I receive a letter that might indicate I'm deviating from social norms or religious morals.
The code running Amazon doesn't judge people for buying erotica; the town bookseller does. The card catalog won't out you to your friends for looking up LGBT reading material; the librarian might. The code running Google Maps doesn't care and won't tell anyone that you're driving to a woman's house and then a restaurant or bar most Saturdays; the waitress/bartender will almost certainly tell a friend/stalker/jilted lover/cop who you were with.
Big Data is far less threatening than Little Data.
Yes. Your local store will be equally forthcoming with its cctv tape and employees' memories. That is a consequence of living under the rule of law. The people have continuously elected Congresses and Presidents who believe the government should have the power to obtain private information, and like it or not, they've made that legally enforceable.
I don't get to commit murder even if I feel it's justified; Amazon doesn't get to refuse to comply with a court order even if it feels it's unjustified. Nobody, individual or corporation, is going to sacrifice their well being or sit in jail indefinitely for contempt of court to protect the privacy of your purchase history.
The only people who really pull that stunt are journalists.
Banks are open. My bank has all my information and is responsible for it, sure. But if I want to take my money somewhere else, there's nothing the bank can do about it. I can still transfer money to anyone I like via check, ACH, or credit. Banks are open. Facebook is not.
Government is somewhat closed, but it also has an army and isn't going anywhere soon. Facebook is not trustworthy as a single source of truth.
You are totally free to switch to any form of communication anytime you choose, it's just inconvenient. And Facebook does provide a comprehensive export of your data on request.
Switching banks is inconvenient too, especially if you have outstanding loans.
The big problem is that I can't invite people to join a group or go to an event on Facebook who don't have a Facebook account. Facebook is a little like a bank that won't let you cosign on a loan unless you also open savings, checking, and credit card accounts with them.
A "Facebook account" is just a password attached to a verified email address. Of course you can't attach your identity to a group or an event if you refuse to let Facebook identify you.
If you have a Facebook group where personally identifying participants isn't desirable (i.e. you would want non-FB users participating) than you're probably looking for a wiki or Google Sites instead. Facebook has every right not to be a web publishing tool.
I see you don't understand the network effects of banking. Many people can't switch banks because of commitments like home, car and personal loans which in the majority of cases don't seamlessly transition to their new bank. It is such a big issue that many countries e.g. Australia, UK have actively put in place policies specifically to address it.
And my point still stands that the overwhelming majority of people are comfortable with their most private data being in the hands of third parties. And Facebook has long reached that point where people can trust it for managing their semi-private data.
No. I'd love to try out Diaspora but I signed up for an invite months ago and haven't heard anything from them. So it's not just a marketing problem, they're clearly not ready for mass use yet.
You can sign up instantly at http://diasp.org. I have no idea why joindiaspora continues to deter people by preventing registrations to their pod. It seems insane. The software itself seems fine.
Nobody cares about diaspora because it is poorly executed and the front pages look like a business pitch. Also, my guess would be that whatever kicks facebook off it's perch will not be a copy of facebook. It will be something that at first glance looks nothing like facebook, but happens to encompass the same functionality as a side effect of a different business.
Because at the end of the day user experience is order of magnitudes more important than some arbitrary geek obsession with being open. Which isn't important for most people since they are used to having their personal information owned by third parties e.g. banks, employers, insurance companies, government.