[nsgi]

That web still exists: look at Wikipedia, one of the largest websites, run entirely not-for-profit with the aim of sharing the sum of human knowledge. Nothing stops people from starting not-for-profit websites today and only linking to other not-for-profit websites. Running a website has never been cheaper and search engines are light years ahead of anything that existed then.

They may never be as popular as Facebook and Twitter, but that's because the web has grown in audience to people looking for something similar to watching TV, reading newspapers and going to the pub. Those activities will always be more popular than people hacking in a garage, but they can coexist.

[hinkley]

The changing audience isn't the biggest reason they're more popular. When people talk about 'stickiness' they're talking about using Dark Patterns of UI and/or using hyperbolic tone (formerly known as Yellow Journalism) to pander or incite, which makes you stick around long after you got the information you thought you came for.

Relatively wholesome sites like Wikipedia can't compete on numbers and hours of visitors because they limit themselves mostly to 'see also', and commentary is split onto another page so you have to choose to see it every time.

[nsgi]

At the end of the day it's peoples' choice whether they choose to read sites like that, which pages they like on Facebook, etc. Those sites are popular for the same reason newspapers like the New York Post and the Daily Mail are popular. For as long as newspapers have been published online, those sites have been part of the web. Maybe not BuzzFeed, but sites posting sensationalist content.

Wikipedia is definitely able to compete. It is the 5th most popular website, behind Google and Facebook but ahead of every online tabloid and content farm.

[RRRA]

They CAN, sure, but they MUST coexist...

and that is less guaranteed considering market forces and network effects.