- 
                            
                                
                                    
                                        by Erik Sass
                                        , Staff Writer, 
                                    
                                
                                October 27, 2011
                            
                        
The  last year has seen a number of social media sites launch which are  explicitly positioned as alternatives to Facebook, offering more  privacy, more control over sharing, and less advertising.
The latest  such site to receive a lot of press is Unthink, which recently announced  that it has raised $2.5 million in venture capital funding from Douglas  Bay Capital.
In  what seems to be
an attempt to tap into the sense of grievance which  motivates Occupy Wall Street, Unthink describes itself as a “social  revolution” which promises to “emancipate social
media.” And it does  have some strong selling points. One of its interesting features include  the ability to divide your interactions with other individuals on the  network into different
“suites” and “stages,” effectively managing your  public and private presence. This is a good idea, but also one that  Facebook and Google+ have moved towards with Groups and
Circles,  respectively. Also, the default setting for sharing is private --  another distinct improvement over established networks which subtly push  you into sharing more than you might realize.
As  noted, Unthink isn’t the first un-Facebook out there: last year I wrote  about Diaspora, a “more secure, personalized” network which gives users  more control in what
information they share about themselves. On its  Web site Diaspora is billed as a “privacy aware, personally controlled,  do-it-all distributed open source social network.” Diaspora also
makes a  point of leaving its code open for other programmers to introduce their  own features, innovations, and variants. Users can also “set up their  own personal servers” and
“create their own hubs.”
While  it has little to do with user experience, from a public relations  perspective it will be interesting to see how the people founding these  new
sites define success -- an important strategic move to avoid being  prematurely labeled a “failure” by a breathless, overhasty press. I make  this point because it frankly seems unlikely
that any of the new  networks will ever approach Facebook in terms of the most-cited metric  -- the number of users it has attracted.
Currently  Facebook probably has somewhere between 700
million and 800 million  registered users -- a colossal number which includes over half the  population of the U.S. This sheer volume means that Facebook enjoys what  one of the speakers at OMMA
Social termed “massive incumbency” -- a  combination of volume and momentum that appear to make it unstoppable.  Simply put, everyone wants to be on Facebook because everyone else is
already there.
By  contrast new social networks face the challenge of attracting enough  users to make it worthwhile for other users to join, thereby achieving  critical social mass. The real
nature of this challenge has been  highlighted in recent weeks by Google+, yet another Facebook competitor  that -- so far at least -- has failed to set the world on fire.
That  said, Google+,
Unthink, and Diaspora are all relatively new, and it’s  still possible Facebook will do something so deeply alienating that  these smaller alternatives become more attractive.  Only time
will tell.