History has proved that when someone attacks something, he eventuates to be interrelated with his target at the end. In the case of the social networks at the web 2.0, it is rather futile for someone to try to encounter with the structures that define how YouTube or MySpace e.g. are formed, because the volume of info elaboration and the systems in use for this, are in a different scale and of a better quality.
In addition, if he tries to do so, he will be obliged to embed their negative characteristics; otherwise it is impossible to compete with.
A possible solution for example, could be to refuse to play with the given rules and to find other ways to set different rules for the game.
For instance, the creation of common goods regarding the information and the knowledge that is produced today by the prosumers, especially via the different forms of the affective labor, requires also the production of distribution and interaction systems; otherwise their re-appropriation from the users become problematic.
Axel Bruns uses as an example the Facebook.
Facebook may be a site for social interaction, but from a wider, whole-of-Web perspective beyond its own walls, it's contributing not to the social, but to an antisocial Web. Committed Facebook converts may not see the problem, but for those of us who still resist the constant "poking" and "prodding", the announcements of yet more closed communities, and the alerts promising us content only available inside the proprietary enclosure, these daily reminders only indicate that more and more information is now only available by utilising means of interaction which we have no ability to control.
What it matters after all according to him is how the users can create their own combinations by using the characteristics of the sites.
Something, which could be like a Spacebook or a MyFace.