It's time for social network neutrality

A very interesting article! It neatly articulates why API lock-ins are analogous to other "traditional" monopolies. This paragraph was particularly illuminating:

Social networks are a critical layer of infrastructure for a wide variety of applications and content. Unlike physical networks, opportunities for lock-in emerge not at the physical layer but at the social layer: our connections. In other words, they do not wield monopoly control by dint of massive up-front fixed costs but rather by the accumulated value contributed by users in the form of the social graph!

However, to play the Devil's advocate, I am not entirely convinced that unlike electricity, or water, why these services are considered essential, considering how recently the entire concept of a social graph emerged. I see a strong case for enforcing neutrality rules for the internet, partly because a lot of the costs were initially bore by taxpayer money, but the same can't be said of Facebook and Twitter.

I'm ambivalent about this. It's unfair to basically nuke Twitter/Facebook's business model by turning them into utilities. OTOH, it was unfair of Twitter to promote themselves like a utility for a few years and then dramatically change course (even though it was obviously inevitable to some people).

Related: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/05/15/faceboo... discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1350689

Pushing for existing closed networks to be somehow regulated seems like a worse solution than pushing for federated social networks where you can switch as you like and still communicate with everyone. The best way to avoid abuse is to have a system with a low cost of entry for new players and a low cost of switching for users.