I agree that user data is driving the "free" service of social media. But I don't see your point when you say an open social media implementation failed because it was open. You imply that Facebook succeeded since it was a closed protocol implementation.
Why did Facebook succeed? Would have it succeeded if it was open? Perhaps market needs and competition scene has more to do with success than the nature of protocol. What percentage of users even care about protocols?
As for the "failed because it was open" comment. Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that it failed because it was open. Merely that it was open and failed (apparently maybe not so much failed).
I had thought it failed for the obvious reason: not attaining the necessary critical mass that a social network needs. One of its primary propositions was an open data policy. Apparently this might not have been sufficient to launch it into success. Again, there's still something there so maybe its still rumbling on.
Why did Facebook succeed? Would have it succeeded if it was open? Perhaps market needs and competition scene has more to do with success than the nature of protocol. What percentage of users even care about protocols?