Dear Phil, your law is misstated

Will Google+ take off and become the next large social network? While reading up on the topic I found this interesting comment on durability of social networks:

Phil's law: There's an inverse correlation between the time it takes to scale a social network and the durability of that social network.

Really?

According to this law, the longer it takes to scale a social network the lower the durability of that network will be. Which is the exact opposite of what the law was meant to state ("In other words, the faster it scales, the higher the probability it will fail").

The problem may lie in the use of "the time it takes to scale" rather than "the speed with which a social network scales". A patched law might read:
There's an inverse correlation between the speed with which a social network scales and the durability of that social network.

Or, if time is kept, it should state that there is a correlation and not an inverse correlation, leading to the law:
There's a correlation between the time it takes to scale a social network and the durability of that social network.

Either way the law is currently misstated.