Another possible answer is that Facebook is afraid of regulation, and by demonstrating the ability to self-correct and focus on the features that make Facebook unique, the company can avoid regulation altogether. But the question is, how exactly will Facebook be regulated? It's certainly not a crime to offer a free service that lets people connect with people they know. I said last year that Facebook's monopoly power may not help publishers turn a profit, especially in digital advertising. But for now, these cases are only a theoretical possibility (or, for publishers, impractical).
There may be a third motive: call it "enlightened egoism." Remember where Facebook's power flow comes from: the need to control. Facebook is a super aggregator, which means it leverages its own direct relationship with users. At the same time, the zero marginal cost of serving users, and network effects, allow its business to form a virtuous circle that steadily reduces costs and sms marketing service expands indefinitely, giving the company a dominant position in both supply (publishers) and advertisers . It can be seen that the ultimate threat to Facebook can never come from publishers or advertisers, but from the needs of users. And the real danger doesn't come from users using competing social networks (though Facebook has been paranoid about this); it's not enough to break
the virtuous circle. Instead, the only thing that undermines Facebook's power is the voluntary rejection of the app by users. And, I suspect, if there's a general perception that Facebook is a bad thing for you - like smoking on the web, then users will have a "no" attitude towards Facebook. That's why I find it so compelling that Facebook focuses on what's good for its users.