The author's main points seem to be that:
1. Facebook has similarities to AOL, and AOL's bubble burst
2. There was a bubble in the late '90s therefore there must be a bubble now
3. Goldman is investing in Facebook, Goldman invested in other bubbles, therefore the investment must be bad
4. Social is a fad
Nothing on why Facebook specifically is doing a bad job and why someone else is positioned to upset them. Not much evidence at all if you ask me. You could write the article with 90% of the content the same and replace "Facebook" with "Google" or "Apple" or "Microsoft"
"Yet social media is itself as temporary as any social gathering, nightclub or party. It's the people that matter, not the venue."
All the other stuff in the article is an attempt to back this argument up (AOL/TW merger stuff, Goldman deal a symptom of cashing-out mentality, MySpace collapse as a precedent.)
The author's main points seem to be that: 1. Facebook has similarities to AOL, and AOL's bubble burst 2. There was a bubble in the late '90s therefore there must be a bubble now 3. Goldman is investing in Facebook, Goldman invested in other bubbles, therefore the investment must be bad 4. Social is a fad
Nothing on why Facebook specifically is doing a bad job and why someone else is positioned to upset them. Not much evidence at all if you ask me. You could write the article with 90% of the content the same and replace "Facebook" with "Google" or "Apple" or "Microsoft"