This book describes the four young men who created Diaspora* [no footnote - that's how Diaspora is written] which was intended to be a Facebook-like application providing for significant user control over the ownership of the user's data. Diaspora is real: You can download it and run your own "pod" to provide for social networking for a group, with connections to other pods.
The book was dissatisfying. I expected a lot because I loved Dwyer's prior book on the fall of the Twin Towers, 102 Minutes, which is a worthy read. [In retrospect, I would level some of the same critique against that earlier book: Not enough why/proving. But in that case the story was so gripping I didn't care.]
Without giving away too much of a spoiler, there are some very sad outcomes here, but Dwyer never really works toward any answers to the "why" questions. To be sure, he's a reporter, but I still need some deeper analysis. Some of the answers would have to do with the abuse of young people by the investment structures in venture capital, and with what amounts to neglect of personal needs (physical, spiritual, mental) among young people involved in high tech. The book tends to restrain itself from judging these young men, but they seem pretty ignorant of building a company or the details of software development for what turns out to be a pretty big project. The book's title refers to the four young men as "boys" which seems like a purchase-bait from the press - I don't think Dwyer condescends to them that way.
So what's missing? A few things.
A key player early on is one Yosem Companys, who was an engineering PhD student at Stanford when he got involved with Diaspora. For awhile, he was the CEO. Yosem brought a lot of maturity to the company, but at the same time, his motives aren't deeply probed. We learn along the way that he is ill, but we don't learn much about the outcome or how that affected his situation toward the end.
Another person who is sadly neglected is Sarah Mei. Mei was (probably is) an employee at Pivotal, and that company gave office space to Diaspora. She contributed a lot of code to the project, and for awhile was going to be their lead engineer. Sarah is incredibly smart, and appears here as merely a bit player. I believe she would have a lot to say about Diaspora, but she is barely quoted. Maybe she didn't want to be foregrounded, but it's a shame that we don't learn more about her intervention.
Again, on the "why" question. These guys really drank the kool-aid for valley-style web/product development. They are surrounded by smart mentors. Why didn't any of these mentors stress more the strains of the environment, and the low likelihood of a positive exit/conclusion for the project? The whole setup of Diaspora was weak. The four young men all took mostly engineering roles, and they didn't have a solid "product" role or "business guy" role.
Another puzzle is that with all those mentors, how come no one reinforced to them the obviously "feminized" nature of much online social media like Facebook? Starting at about the half-way mark, they begin to talk about making the product easier to use for "girls" but the concept isn't really taken seriously. In short: Some analysis might tell us that young men in 2010 or so were profoundly ill-equipped to come to grips with the social energies around what they're building -- that's an important story! They kicked Diaspora* off from the idea of free software and personal liberty, but didn't really get the "marketing" right -- or even research the basic question as to whether "real people" would care. (Yes, they got hundreds of thousands of requests for signups, but so what . . . Been there.)
I'd say more, but that would require spoilers.