Before I joined Facebook, I had read that Facebook was the so-called "Hottest" piece of Internet real estate. What wasn't clear was to what end. It appears that the Web 2.0 crowd of self-styled "geeks" or "nerds" (no offense intended) were stating their view that Facebook is "hot" because it has gained so many members and is so "great" for all the mundane, entertaining things one may do on Facebook to "pass the time," something I haven't done since I grew up. I didn't say, "I'm bored" very often anyway, not that there weren't boring aspects. The Freemasonry educational system bored me stiff. It's designed to hold back that which would solve everything because the solution includes taking down the whole Freemasonry way of approaching existence.
The numbers on Facebook are impressive; however, due to its starting point of exclusivity (privacy settings to act as bedroom walls) and for a very narrow age-range, it is still difficult to interact with a wider audience here.
I think discussions are relegated to the side partly because they are several clicks deep unless one bookmarks them or takes other such personal steps. They don't get a main-menu item. I would have them be main-menu. BlogCatalog is an example, but the action there is for bloggers only. Facebook could do the same but be open to all. The discussions are in the stream on groups, but once they move off screen, they are in an in-prominent block. The discussion icons are small, etc. It just doesn't encourage discussions. Groups must be sought out; and were categories have more than around 500 groups, the newer, smaller ones don't show up. Search results just stop after 500 or so.
I don't know if this will interest you or exactly what impact it will have, but I set my Facebook privacy settings to very nearly zero privacy. By doing that, I should be able to assume that my Facebook area will be as open as my blog to read, with the exception that my blog is entirely do-follow, whereas Facebook is no-follow in many areas (for whatever reason, I can't agree that it's helpful).
Of course, you are right that there is a huge crowd that simply says, we aren't interested in what interests you even if that's the solution. They feel put upon when others suggest more than what's mainstreamed as the typical charity that does its damnedest not to "offend" anyone, especially the capitalist, corporate, global overlords perpetuating the "need" for "charity."
"Oh, please help feed the starving," but don't overthrow, by any means, no matter how righteous, the Wall Street monsters who are the cause of starvation since humanity certainly has it within its capacity under current conditions to care for every single person in the family of human kind no matter the local "natural" circumstances such as drought, etc.
Who cares though enough to do the right thing? What I get back is pretty much, "Why do we have to do what you say?" We can't all be like you, etc. You want a Church of Saints, and on and on.
This is why there is separation and this life is a sieve. It's a level of Heaven/Hell. Some are going up even after having gone down. Others are going down even after having gone up and for different reasons. Some want to go down not to tell others there to come up but rather to wallow in the mire.
Which analogy helps people to visualize it? Staircases are often used. Ladders have been used. Escalators might be more apt for this generation. Being taken up in whirlwinds and beams of light have been used. Where the literal and figurative meets is hotly debated in "religious" circles.
Who's seeking what? I don't want to return to the mindset of the "Founding Fathers" that prevailed during and after the American Revolutionary War. They were very backbiting and often up to not but no good: self centeredness. There wasn't harmony. There wasn't unity. The common people were forced. They had little say. History makes that clear.
Large-L Liberal (so-called Enlightenment Era, classical), limited, representational, divided, checks and balances, republican, competitive government hasn't worked and won't. It's a mess. It's a very, very poor design. The minds that formed the American system were not nearly as intelligent as those "founders" claimed who managed to fake out posterity through the mini-ages so far. Just look at the memorials in Washington, D.C., (named after the highest ranking Freemason in history) to those "demigods." Please, they were selfish, and their system has allowed what has transpired: foreclosures on old widows, children living in storage units, soup kitchens running out daily, while the spiritual sons of Alexander Hamilton primarily but also Thomas Jefferson give themselves the largest bonuses in their history after having stolen once again the rightful inheritance of all the rest of humanity and after having reduced more and more of our brothers and sisters to debt and tax slavery.
All this talk about if only we could get back to the U.S. Constitution is a complete waste. It should be scrapped. It is not the answer. The answer is The Christian Commons.