In 46 years I've seen a lot of "but this one is different" claims in a lot of subjects. No, it isn't in most cases. Google, yes, is different (but even they need be very careful). Facebook isn't; users are finding they can go elsewhere.
Initially it was Harvard (2003), then Ivys (March, 2004), then selective colleges, then all edus. It then tapped high-school students (September, 2005). It was opened to the general public in September 2006. Introduction to other countries also generally came later in the game, and FaceBook have had to compete with alternative networks, particularly in China and Russia. (Most data here from Wikipedia's Facebook article).
It's helpful to look at each of these as a somewhat independent social network.
We're hearing now about significant defections (or failures to join) in the < 25 market. Facebook's growth overall in the US peaked ~2010-2011. It's been growing outside the US, but that's a much less lucrative market for advertisers. Breaking out growth / user patterns by introduction point would be particularly interesting as I suspect this would model earlier social network growth more accurately.
> And Facebook shows absolutely no meaningful differentiation from that pattern.
The implication of this claim is that 10 years and growing is not meaningfully different from 7 years and stagnant.