Prof. Wu makes a couple of assumptions when he gives suggestions for Facebook alternatives or successors. I dont see those suggestions as the most important point of his argument however. I believe the most important point is that there must be competition, that trying to "fix" Facebook will not suffice.

Nonetheless, these are the assumptions I see:

1. The software alternatives or successors must be commercial.

2. The software must attract a certain quantity of users to be viable.

3. The software must enable networks comprising large numbers of people, perhaps in the millions or billions.

This scale is far greater than the average size of any Facebook users group of friends.

Over the years Facebook may have morphed into a "public square" for exercising "Free Speech" but in the beginning as I recall it was not a means to broadcast to other users outside of ones social circle.

Its primary utility is arguably still in enabling communication within small groups, not enabling broadcasting to the general public.

Wu's assumptions point toward a Zuckerberg-like centrally-managed approach to what I see as historically a locally-managed activity: the human tendency to form small groups.

For many years, gamers and others have been writing software to enable small groups to communicate over peer-to-peer networking, without any funding from advertisers.

Wu writes, "So what stands in the way of a genuine Facebook alternative? It isn't the technology."

Thats exactly right. IMHO.