I think the article's other points are equally invalid... How can Facebook's "500 million user" base be the impediment to people adopting Diaspora? Surely, if his logic was correct, then no one would've ever moved to Facebook from MySpace. I would argue that the only reason Facebook has so many users is precisely because a strong competitor like Diaspora isn't here yet.
What's more, his idea that "Facebook gets more users every year, ergo Facebook users don't care about privacy" isn't too valid. How many of those users despise Facebook, but join anyway? How many of those users publish only what they would on a public service like Twitter, keeping their private lives off the web?
There is too much weaseling in this article for me to count it as valid.
How can Facebook's "500 million user" base be the impediment to
people adopting Diaspora?
Because you're going to stay where your friends are, unless it's really easy to switch. It's not going to be easy to switch to Diaspora when you have to host your own node. Then when you do switch, you won't be able to find any of your friends. Diaspora has no solution to the discovery problem. There's no way to search for people, you'll have to ask all your friends where their node is; It will be like exchanging emails again. Sounds like a lot of hassle for not much gain.People in protest movements would gravitate toward such software. They have reason to be paranoid about a centralized corporate service.
Facebook beat MySpace ultimately by being easier to use, with a cleaner interface. It also struck at a time when social networking technology (and broadband access) had matured to the point necessary for mass public acceptance. The normal lifecycle for every major social network before Facebook was about 18 months -- that's about the span of time MySpace was king of the hill.
I in fact predict that Facebook will eventually fade to AOL-esque irrelevance. I just don't think Diaspora has the right value proposition to slay the Facebook dragon.