I do not really think that the so-called network or networking, the old friends or the new friend, the acquaintance or the stranger, actually (see here).
The connection between acquaintances is communication; the connection between strangers is the community. Our most important social resources are actually stored in our telephone records. Pick up the phone, dial a number, or clockwork SMS, this is the basic communication. This relationship is ported to the Internet, and there is the possibility of extending it to One-to-many or many-to-many with the premise of maintaining one-to-one communication. So, in my opinion, Facebook is a more complex and expanded telephone communication record. Facebook itself has emphasized more than once that "we are not a community", but this is always overlooked.
Tencent QQ, has long since the initial pick-up of the stranger's tool, became another address book extension. The ultimate form of this expansion is likely to be the social graph idea that Facebook has put forward, allowing this familiar relationship to penetrate directly into all of the user's day-to-day behavior. Not only do I know that you have just made a new girlfriend, but also know the number of underwear you bought in which store yesterday.
Communication security and privacy control must be associated with an acquaintance's social life. So acquaintances must be socially convergent and require relative privacy. All civilized societies will have a telecommunications law (China is not, China has only telecommunications regulations), because the security of communications has become a basic human rights of citizens. So most of the content on Facebook is never going to allow Google to index.
Communities are different. Generally speaking, the community is an open, self-organized, self-regulating groups of strangers, their connections, or interests (such as open source communities, outdoor communities), or specific purposes (such as the BT Seed-sharing community, webmaster Community), or some common identity (such as Homecoming, Association, Chi You). Communities generally do not care about the strength, topic and activity of the relationship between members and members, which is the core of the community.
In short, the discussion of what color underwear friends John Wear is communication; discuss what color underwear old Xu wears, is the community.
Communication emphasizes contact between acquaintances, and the Community encourages participation and sharing of members. Communication is only valuable to acquaintances, and communities are valuable to all members of the community and even to people outside the community. So the community will not block search engine crawler. If a community is overly focused on privacy controls, for example, assuming that all users in watercress set their content to be visible only to certain people, does the overall value of the community exist? Could Twitter be the pulse of the planet if all users of Twitter set content secrecy and only open to friends?
In conclusion, I think that the location of a website determines its business logic. The paradoxical design of the function is likely to disrupt the business logic and ultimately damage the core value of the site. Of course, it is necessary and feasible to provide certain community functions on a large communication platform, as well as to provide certain communication functions in a community (such as Twitter's direct messages design, as well as Watercress's neighborhood groupings). However, the provision of this function must be done without harming the nature of the site as a prerequisite.
