Some good points, but I beg to differ with, "If social tools were creating real economic gains, we'd expect to see a substitution effect. They'd replace — disintermediate — yesterday's gatekeepers."

User reviews on sites like Amazon or Yelp (current legal issues aside, I have found it very useful) have largely disintermediated gatekeepers, to the benefit of customers.

What is even worse is that the bubble also drains the talent pool to chase social media startups.

Just take a look at recent batches of YC or Techstars.

Started off with some good points, but then went on to adopt a definition of "social media" that was so broad as to be useless. That too many Facebook "friendships" might devalue reasonable friendships is a reasonable point. Implying that Farmville, government censorship and trolls can all be blamed on social media is just silly.

In absence of a clear definition of what you mean by social media, you sound like someone from the traditional world in the 90s riling against the Internet and the lack of proven ROI.

What exactly constitutes "social media" for you, Umair? You should define it and draw the boundaries before you argue against such a vague concept.

The closest guess I can make is social media equals the notion of "friending" for you. "Friending", I'd argue, is just a gimmick and not the core of social media. So you are attacking the weakest part of a huge thing.

The proper spelling of "social media" is "digital opiate".

While chemical drugs bind to the neural receptors abusing the basic reward circuits of the neural system, digital drugs tap into basic human needs originally designed to promote productive compatriot-ship. Both end up being addictive and corrosive to a different degree.

Interestingly, digital opiate is encroaching on the niche previously filled with religion. Religion, too, binds to basic needs of belonging.