get the average person to care?
currently anyone in the world on pretty much ANY device can access, register an account, and connect fast and easy to their nearby friends on Facebook. The FB philosophy is to "make the world more open and connected" , not "help connect relatively wealthy, tech oriented people." Diaspora has a number of significant hurdles it needs to tackle to just be in the conversation:
1) Ease of access from any device -- can some rando in Egypt open up a 'dumb' phone, sign into his account, and enter the political discourse relatively easily? Twitter is getting there on this account, and it's why Twitter is in the conversation.
2) Scale -- currently everyone and their mom (and dad, grandparents, cousins, long-distant alumni friends, etc.) is on Facebook. For a social network to "replace Facebook" in your words, their needs to be a solid value proposition over Facebook that causes huge droves of people to move away or switch. Currently there's little -- maybe privacy controls could be easier to use, but Zuck himself said that users control their data already: "Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with." Other than that -- why would the average person put in the "activation energy" over inertia to switch, other than "it's shiny and cool?"
In all Diaspora is an interesting project, but it has little differentiating value prop