Of course scarcity plays into the equation, but Forbes does not try to misrepresent this fact. As a whole, the Forbes article can just as well be read as critic

Of course scarcity plays into the equation, but Forbes does not try to misrepresent this fact. As a whole, the Forbes article can just as well be read as criticism of using extrapolation as the main valuation apparatus. The journalist very casually dismiss Zuckerberg's wealth as a paper fortune, which turns the headline's hyperbole into irony if you will. My point is that what's actually written in the Forbes article is very open for interpretation, which makes it less of a thing to stomp your foot and grind your teeth about. In my humble view, 37s is much closer to jumping the shark here, than what Forbes is.