“Facebook needs a parachute, a new leader, a new acquisition of an app — something!”

• a new leader … because … why? You’re placing Steve Jobs in antithesis to Zuckerberg because, presumably, Zuck’s failure was to foresee how his creation was to be exploited. But you’re saying that it’s a failure of leadership, which it isn’t. Zuck managed to lead the company right to its declared goal, of making money. Jobs was a visionary, but a socially responsible leader he wasn’t. Apple got on China’s labour watch lists during his tenure for the way workers were exploited and Apple contracted factories, for example. Yeah, would be great to see a company aim genuinely at social responsibility but that’s a dream. Actions in that direction are limited to mere image and PR stunts and it’s really naive to think a change in leadership will bring anything else. A new leader will gloss over what’s perceived as Zuck’s failures, will make some promises with outcomes difficult to measure and the world will cheer Zuck’s departure while the company will do the same things as now, which is sell our data.
• new acquisition? that’s the last thing Facebook needs. Facebook’s been criticised for its acquisitions regardless of what they were. Instagram and WhatsApp were presumably different areas of interest, with Instagram being a half-competitor of sorts. Unless Facebook plans to buy a company building the first ever ship to take a human to Mars, Facebook would do better to invest in R&D and come up with something that cures cancer or otherwise benefits mankind in some significant way.

There’s no parachute for Facebook now, people are moving to greener and more interesting pastures slowly but steadily and that’s all for the best. I can’t say I wish Facebook a swift death, but I do like to see some fragmentation on the social scene. Too many people in the same place gives too much power to a single platform.