Facebook adapting would be a good thing.

Back in 1998 or so, on an obscure corner of the internet, there were three or four competing ladders for a game I played. The same dynamics were in play as on social websites: it was critical to play on the ladder with the best coverage of your local community, and games absolutely could not be transferred between them. One ladder rose head and shoulders above all the others, offered gamers features and respect that no other ladder did. Its passion for the game and commitment to the community crushed the competition, and it became the only place to play this particular game.

Years went by. A generation of gamers came who had never known anything but this one ladder. (Generations go fast on the internet). It was considered unassailable, owning the community and the legacy the way it did. And given that, small offenses against the community itself began to accumulate. Rules out of step with the popular notion of what was fair in the game. Absentee administrators who didn't see eye to eye with those who still played the game. Allegations of cheating by players poorly investigated. Lots of whining by people who felt they were ill-treated, met with the response, "You're free to leave if you hate it here so much." Only they weren't. There was nowhere else to go.

Then one of the players who'd had enough organized some competition. He put together a cabal of talented players to seed a new ladder. He recruited me to write the software for it, drew up a new rules set together with those more in touch with the community. For six months, development of the new ladder consumed many of my evenings and weekends.

The launch attracted disgruntled players in droves. Many players hated the old one and flocked to us. Many hated the new one and refused to play there. Many played on both. But we definitely had hit on a genuine need for a place more in touch with the mores of the community, and within months, we were the more popular of the two.

Both ladders operated for a couple more years before the game eventually died. But which ladder lasted longer didn't matter. The existence of an alternative changed the politics at both places. It changed what people expected from their leadership, and it made it possible to just . . . leave. We wanted to build a better ladder, and in some ways we did, but we changed the dynamics of the game community as a whole. I think even the old ladder saw a longer life because of us.

You can try to build a walled garden, but you can't stop cultural transfer. At some point, when the administration gets far enough out of step with the population, when there's a better way to do things and they don't take it, alternatives arise. After that, it doesn't matter whether the old guy adapts to compete or dwindles and dies away. The place is changed. The game is changed. They have to do better or another challenger will arise.

Facebook doesn't have to lose. Facebook being forced to adapt would be enough. Revolutions change even those who don't join them. The protestant reformation changed the catholic church. The American revolution had implications in Europe and ultimately China. The digital revolution has changed the way magazines and newspapers are written.

If you build a service where people really can send steamy love notes to their girlfriends, post pictures of their 21st birthday parties for friends, or air some unpopular political views, and feel assured that this information will not be seen by the wrong people . . . if you really can make a Facebook with robust privacy, people will want it. There's a real need, not just for nerds, but for normal people. To a serious challenger, Facebook would have to adapt or dwindle in relevance. And the outcome of that doesn't really matter.

Build a private, secure, federated social network today, teach people why they need it, and tomorrow everyone will expect it. Whether it's called Facebook or Diaspora will matter very little. The world will have changed.