A headline on Google News asked if Facebook was going to destroy Twitter.
It seems the price of Twitter’s stock has sunk and now, like Myspace, resources from Twitter are supposed to be shifting towards Facebook.
But in the literal sense, Facebook’s entanglement is completely different than Twitter’s, so the resources are not going to be shifted towards Facebook, but towards another distributive network, probably not even invented yet.
Because of entanglement, Facebook’s resources will go towards a network made up of decentralized particles. The cultures inside the structure of the Facebook network do not rely on connections outside their orientation for their resources.
Because of how Facebook is structured, the network that is Facebook is used mainly for entertainment. This is not a judgment call. People go to Facebook because they personally feel good in doing so. In today’s world especially, there is an advantage in feeling good about something, because the real world kinda sucks.
Twitter’s resources, on the other hand, are made for a distributive network. Each resource available to the network rely on the one next to it. The network is mainly used for gaining knowledge. Again no judgement call. People go to Twitter because it is somehow satisfying. I am guessing that people who are satisfied create less friction in the world. Again, the world kinda sucks, so anything that creates less friction has to be good.
While there may be left in-place a link between that which “feels good” and that which is satisfying on Facebook and Twitter, Facebook and Twitter have structures that are so much different, that, in the sense of D&C (Destruction and Creation of Boyd’s OODA loop) the orientation of the resources inside those structures will not fit inside the entanglements between them. Because neither will fit separately, it is the orientation who has the advantage in entitlements that dominates the entanglement environment.
As it is, within the entanglement between Facebook and Twitter, each has been inoculated against the other, and it is the arrow of time (the market forces) that points to the winner.
If they are not inoculated against exposure to each other and with the correct vaccine, then, I suppose, the orientation of the culture of the one network becomes like a virus inside the other network. The virus tries to suck-up either all that feels good or is satisfying, something that our world needs both of.
It is a small wonder that the security of a structure, such as a “wall”, isn’t each network’s first response to a crisis, either conventional or unconventional.