So ... if Facebook didn't exist, in 2500 the year 2000 would just be a pleasant memory instead of a historical reality? I know that's not exactly what you're saying but your post isn't remotely approaching this from an anthropological point of view, so it's mostly irrelevant (interesting stuff about the Quaker wedding rituals, though).

Dismissing Facebook as a trivial place is clearly wrong; it both is and isn't. There's a famous old diary written by an English clergyman or similar, wherein he wrote down everything he ate every day for multiple decades in meticulous detail. On the other hand there's Shakespeare, whose handwriting survives in something like six places, all signatures. If Facebook had been around in 1600, I wouldn't give any more of a damn about what British clergymen ate for lunch, but I would sure know a lot more about Shakespeare.

So I don't think your analogy really works. Facebook has caused me to feel disgust for many people I've met, and also to respect many people I met never have realized were interesting. Some people spew bullshit, others make posts that in 500 years could easily be seen as valid anthropological record. Thoughts?