I don't take the OP to be distracting or unnecessary in any way - in fact, I find it highly insightful.
The OP - perhaps without realizing it explicitly - makes an important distinction between the kinds of information-sharing systems that are in place on the modern web. Borrowing from Marshall McLuhan's distinctions between oral and literate cultures [0] we can see that Google and Facebook have a similar relationship. Both engage our hunter-gatherer mindsets in novel ways, but only one clearly does so with utility.
Google's usefulness as a search engine provider is in how it provides relevant information to users who are querying for something specific. Google search users are not sitting and waiting - they're searching and exploring. Google, therefore, plays to our hunter-gatherer mindset by directly aiding us in our searches.
Facebook's usefulness as a social network is in its ability to facilitate individual communications within a vast, centralized ecosystem. Users of Facebook are often searching for something - connections, information, relationships, etc., - but the way it engages its users' hunter-gatherer mindsets is very different. Instead of delivering targeted answers relevant to queries, Facebook forces its users to search through seemingly endless threads of often low-quality conversations, not really doing much of anything to aid in the search. Its users are simply sitting and waiting for the correct information to scroll into view. The search function on Facebook is not like Google's - it doesn't look for information, it simply takes you to a new part of the social square to which you want to go. Facebook, in essence, attaches a hunter-gatherer mindset to the very antithetical gossip found in the social square.
IMO, it is perfectly fine to have this conversation right here. Facebook has added a new dimension to the modern web: the expectation for there to be a well-regulated, always-available social square online. If the outcome of Google's actions are as inevitable as the article states, it would be proper to discuss where Facebook's unique "contributions" to the web fit into this article's analysis.
The OP - perhaps without realizing it explicitly - makes an important distinction between the kinds of information-sharing systems that are in place on the modern web. Borrowing from Marshall McLuhan's distinctions between oral and literate cultures [0] we can see that Google and Facebook have a similar relationship. Both engage our hunter-gatherer mindsets in novel ways, but only one clearly does so with utility.
Google's usefulness as a search engine provider is in how it provides relevant information to users who are querying for something specific. Google search users are not sitting and waiting - they're searching and exploring. Google, therefore, plays to our hunter-gatherer mindset by directly aiding us in our searches.
Facebook's usefulness as a social network is in its ability to facilitate individual communications within a vast, centralized ecosystem. Users of Facebook are often searching for something - connections, information, relationships, etc., - but the way it engages its users' hunter-gatherer mindsets is very different. Instead of delivering targeted answers relevant to queries, Facebook forces its users to search through seemingly endless threads of often low-quality conversations, not really doing much of anything to aid in the search. Its users are simply sitting and waiting for the correct information to scroll into view. The search function on Facebook is not like Google's - it doesn't look for information, it simply takes you to a new part of the social square to which you want to go. Facebook, in essence, attaches a hunter-gatherer mindset to the very antithetical gossip found in the social square.
IMO, it is perfectly fine to have this conversation right here. Facebook has added a new dimension to the modern web: the expectation for there to be a well-regulated, always-available social square online. If the outcome of Google's actions are as inevitable as the article states, it would be proper to discuss where Facebook's unique "contributions" to the web fit into this article's analysis.
[0] https://youtu.be/ULI3x8WIxus?t=165