Ok, for starters and general info Facebook started in some Harward dorm room in February of 2004. Started as general university fad it soon started expanding its features and user base. You will forgive author if my dislike of this service comes trough my intentions to be objective. First of all i find facebook nothing more than glorified bulletin board. Interface is clunky and tracking pervasive. These are just the beginning. But i will explain. Current official numbers say this service has billions and billions of users, active users even. Based on these numbers growth and host of other financial parameters, 98 parameters can be found on our financial section on facebook inc. So we have so far Mark Zuckenberg baby which he won fair and square ih several litigation processes, is growing exponentially and increasing its value till now remarkable 334 Billions of $. So it all seems very fine and dandy especially for shareholders and early investors. Also there were some acquisition activity trough the years and even lots of research and development especially in terms of its own infrastructure.
Data centers, VR, chatting, wireless communication and almost 50 aquisitions over time gave some diversity to this primary social networking company. As time passes by value has been growing mainly based on advertising income trough its huge netork of people commenting posting images videos, tagging and poking everywhere and now we come to big but. For all our intentions exact data on users who are actually real users and not some PR bot or fun profile. Also very restrictive policy that makes lots of these accounts blocked makes me doubt mathematical approach to progressive numbers that Facebook presents to the outside. Since we have examples in Theranos recently i think eagerness is due where lots of money is in court. So what is solely my opinion is that evaluation where user is worth on average $$$ and N users make evaluation basis would be acceptable if some outside independent source could watch these numbers. Don't get me wrong almost all online based business has some form of self factor in metrics however only Facebook seems to me bubbly. Lots of value for something so similar to MySpace in my opinion.
We can agree that there are some other social networks already in market and some new ones coming our way that we can notice disproportional financial growth, remember book face started as trend, trends change. I even don't wan to start about really eager modules of FB that try to obtain all information about somebody disregarding what user desire is and even selling compiled data to interested parties. FB was fueled by comments plugin mostly and teenagers at some point, there in no way millions of active users apear daily and keep advertising income that high. Lots of profiles get forgotten, banned, unused and there is no show of this in financials. Off course all data about user structure, their real activity and clicks is not disclosed so i estimated big 20% error factor and stil could not find this much value. Also trouble getting acquisitions to work for the team but also not even trying to integrate some of them. Also add to that lots of diverse projects it has, are not really moonshots in exact sense, none of them has nowhere near disruptive factor to compensate for core business.
If i am right and this really is some form of .com v2.0 bubble advice is simple. In contrast to Apple and Microsoft where we advise caution and hold, Facebook is easy sell, sell, sell. Do your checks and balances and decide for yourself but dumping value is really high especially when one takes in consideration CEO and that imho hideous interface. I will be revisiting this subject but also censorship and banning from "social" network that make this phenomenon actually antisocial IMHO. Until then as always here are some links: facebook wikipedia, criticism of facebook wikipedia, and also very informative reddit facebook company page.