The author takes a popular claim and lambasts it without ever actually addressing it. First is that the greater fool theory suffices as a valid business model-

The author takes a popular claim and lambasts it without ever actually addressing it. First is that the greater fool theory suffices as a valid business model--that the fact that founders can get rich by pawning off an overvalued asset to a hyped up market is a business strategy. It is surely one way to make money, but it isn't a business model. The secondary claim is that these businesses -- such as Twitter -- will figure out their business model at some point in the future, which is as good as having one today. But if there is any risk that they won't find profitability before cash runs out -- and we have seen before that this can happen -- then that isn't true, and the premise that the potential for the discovery of a business model is as good as having one today doesn't hold. The best defense offered is this: As to the business model, there are many, many ways to monetize access to hundreds of millions of consumers with enough money for a smart phone, computer, and enough leisure time to spend on social networks. Are you kidding me? But of all the "many, many ways to monetize" the audience, none are mentioned, which would have been the most credible piece of the article.