Reports over the weekend indicate that Facebook's investors are getting jittery about chief executive Mark Zuckerberg's ability at the helm, as the stock price of the firm continues to slump.
Given the dot com boom of the early 2000s, I wonder why anyone is actually surprised the firm's value has plummetted?
Haven't we already learned that the real-world value of the web is far, far less than the perceived value? Perhaps that should read Web properties or something, rather than the web itself, which I think has proven its value in terms of information flow.
But Facebook is a social thing, a frivolity if you will. Would the world survive without it? Of course. Do any of us actually really need it? No. It's a leisure activity, not a must have. And that fact is now being reflected in the tumble in the firm's share price, as reality bites just like it did a decade or so ago.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-Facebook. It's a really useful marketing tool, and when you take on management of a group or company's page (as I'm doing for a few people), it offers some great information regarding the consumers you're reaching. Social media as a whole is proving its worth in terms of giving a voice to people who might otherwise not be heard, such as those living in so-called 'repressive' regimes (something that definitely isn't my place to comment on, as I live in the UK).
By the same token, though, we've had newspapers and telegraph for hundreds of years, so all the web and social networks add is a level of immediacy that was previously unavailable.
I'm sure Facebook isn't about to go under, but it's good to see that markets haven't lost their grip on reality and realize that actual goods and services are more valuable than a leisure website.