quote 18:33:25 Crucially, both services specialise in transience. Both services started — and gained significant popularity — with a relatively basic feature-set. Twitter’s killer feature was that it was a conversational tool which worked across SMS and the Internet. Facebook’s killer feature was that it wasn’t as horrible as Bebo or MySpace. In neither case was proliferation of links (or sane URI design) a particularly significant concern. Twitter does have fairly sane URI design, but its front end was built in Ruby on Rails, which steers developers towards that end. Facebook’s URIs have actually had a significant overhaul in the last couple of years (but has actually made them worse: everything’s now stuffed in the fragment identifier).
Wibbly-wobbly socially-networky stuff by Tumbled Logic, on Facebook and Twitter. Quoted so I can come back to this later. (Open question: does Facebook actually have an archive? If you know a fragment identifier URI from, say, three years ago, is it retrievable? I know it is on Twitter.)