And probably the second question, too.

Gotcha, thanks for the reply.

That definitely answers my first question.

You are obviously feeling defeated by the situation. I don't blame you.

However, this thread of the discussion wouldn't exist if people didn't care.

I won't beat the dead horse anymore, but, don't give up.

Actually, the more that I think about it, the less I understand the GP's idea.

What is meant by the "Wikipedia of social networking"? I think I need someone to spoon feed it to me.

Not to knock down your idea, but, how are you going to raise the few million to get started, and what about the recurring costs to keep it up, and running, without it generating some form of income?

Again, not to knock your idea, but, aren't privacy, and openness, mutually exclusive to some degree, in a social network?

The P2P idea may do quite a bit for the costs, but, I'm still stuck on the privacy part.

(Score:Googol, Foresight)

(emphasis mine)

Maybe no one can realistically say to themselves "I'm going to flip a switch, and kick Google's rear-end."

That does not mean that Google's services cannot be improved upon.

There is opportunity there to compete with them.

It will always be possible to build a better mousetrap. The bar is high, but, it can be cleared.

It may be a tremendous task, and you would need some brilliant ideas to do it, but please don't say that it is not possible.

My prediction is that there will come a day where Google, Inc. falls into the same trap as every other business is likely to fall in.

They will eventually become complacent. How they deal with that is unknown.

When they do become complacent, that will be the time it will be easiest to compete with, and possibly eclipse them.

However, there is no reason that someone with a brilliant idea, and good organizational skills, can't become a real competitor before Google becomes complacent.

I don't think the problem you are referring to has anything to do with the Internet.

Social clubs provide the same exact opportunities to form splinter groups, and have probably done so, for as long as humans were capable of thought, and reason.

No Internet required.

Actually, the Internet provides some relief to the kind of group-think that bothers you, in that it makes different viewpoints much more available to you.

This might deserve the off-topic mod, but, it might not be.

My knee-jerk reaction in reading that was, "Yep, I don't think organizations who think in that fashion, and make statements like that, are likely to take much business away from Google."

How do you get permanently banned for a month? I'm sure that is simply a poor choice of words, oh well.

Getting angry at a web service for their rules, and style of applying them, is not very constructive.

Even if they aren't as transparent, or helpful, as you think they should be.

When you opened your account, you agreed to be censored by them. Since they are the service provider, it is their prerogative to run that service in whatever way they see fit. They will do it their way, and the only reason they will change is if they see that revenue is dropping because of the way they run it.

If they provide a service that you find valuable enough that you still want it after this realization, then you will choose to put up with it. If not, you will leave, and either find a service that is more compatible with your views, or create your own.

There is nothing requiring you to use their website, you can go to a competitor, and there is nothing stopping you from creating your own website to post your views. Who knows, you website might just be the next big winner, and eclipse Google, and Facebook, combined.

Absolutely. The Internet is big enough for everyone to bring their own ideas, and they can succeed.

My reaction to this is simply, "Why would I limit myself to just Facebook, or just Google, or any other web service?"

Every web service out there will have some things they do better than others, so why would anyone limit themselves when it is not necessary?

Choices. You don't have to make a choice.

That trick never works.

Yup, it's really easy to get caught up in the sensationalism, and be convinced that a leader, or group of leaders, are MONSTERS.

Granted, there have been quite a few people that have achieved power that we would all agree truly belong in that category.

There have also been quite a few that we would be willing to classify as HEROES.

However, the vast majority fit the basic mold of those who want power, and to be in control, and they will find subtle ways to increase their power. Human nature.

At the end of the day, regardless of the particular political view, it is about grabbing, and retaining power, no matter what your nationality, or political views.

Other than that, we all put our pants, dresses, robes, etc., just the same.

Well placed operatives (e.g. Backhoe Operators), would disagree, I think.

That most of us here are technology aficionados tends to blind us to reality sometimes.

It's too easy to just cut the cable at convergence points, and kill the communication.

Sometimes there is no substitute for live, in-person, communication.

My attitude is similar, however, we do not have the luxury to apply our attitudes. At least not without risking serious repercussions. Jail, fines, etc. So you want to make sure you pick your battles well.

The way our country is set up, we don't have a heck of a lot of say, as individuals, of what should be the law, and what should not be the law.

We, as citizens, are allowed to make suggestions (by lobbying, writing letters, protesting, etc.), but, really that is it. Just suggestions.

We have to depend on our representatives in the senate, house of representatives, and the president, to make laws that we deem fair.
(Same for state, and local laws, too.)

If a law is passed that the general public feels is unfair, we can scream our lungs out, but, we are not guaranteed action to abolish/repeal that law.

If a person breaks one of those laws we find unfair, we have to depend on the judicial branch to interpret the law in a manner that we find just. This doesn't happen oftentimes.

Unfortunately, we, either as individuals, or as a mob, have exactly zero influence on this judicial process.

The judges must interpret the law as written, and signed into law, and in the spirit to the best of their judgment that the law was written. We don't get a say at all.

The typical reaction to this argument is to vote whomever is the most ardent idiot(s) out of office, typically a party, the president, or individual legislators.

Unfortunately, it is not easy to do this, and requires pretty much grass-roots effort to get anyone voted out of office.

And, if the government official that would need to be voted out represents 75% of your views in other areas, well, should you try to get them kicked out of office?

I'm not sure if I would trade 75% agreement for a single issue that bugged me. The replacement could be worse.