He has a (semi-)valid point but he distorts it by not understanding what a bubble is. The problem is his definition, "A bubble occurs when an asset moves up to

He has a (semi-)valid point but he distorts it by not understanding what a bubble is. The problem is his definition, "A bubble occurs when an asset moves up today only because it moved up yesterday", is wrong. A Bubble is actually when people have unreal expectations of how much stock will move up tomorrow. Or as economists say... "a widespread cognitive bias that leads market participants to drive stock price above their value in relation to normal valuation standards" So in the case of "bubble 1.0" the bright future of a few truly valuable companies (Amazon, Google, etc...) led to a cognitive bias in favor of ALL internet companies. Those other companies are what made it a bubble. So his point about Facebook may be a valid one. It may be like Amazon and Google 15 years from now. That's a complicated question involving how willing people are to re-establish social connections, how likely it is that a competitor will come along that's superior to Facebook and whether social sharing is "a phase" or not. But Facebook's eventual value does not negate "Bubble 2.0" as it might just be the company that helps create the cognitive bias and not necessarily one that benefits from it.