The sudden, dramatic explosion in value of online social media sites like Facebook and Twitter is reminiscent of the rise, about 15 years ago, of the online businesses that created the "dotcom bubble. " The Internet was far less widely used than it is today. Still, visionaries saw the potential for the Internet we have today, so virtual companies sprung up and grew like weeds as investors threw money their way. Some, like Google and Amazon, developed an enduring online presence and lasting financial value. But far too many quickly lost value when it became apparent that their rapid growth wasn’t yielding revenue.
So, how much is Facebook’s network of users really worth The potential is clear—when so many people are gathered in one virtual place, offering so much personal information about themselves, they create an unprecedented platform for targeted advertising. Or they would, if they were on the network to shop. When eBay and Amazon suggest products to their customers, they’re talking to people who’ve already proven that they’re interested in buying similar products. People go on Facebook for a variety of reasons-to catch up with old friends, share pictures, make new acquaintances, and talk, sometimes endlessly, about themselves. Whether they’ll appreciate having their virtual conversations interrupted by advertising, targeted or not, remains unclear.
It’s also unclear whether Facebook will actually be able to share information about its users’ browsing habits with advertisers. Complaints about the ineffectiveness of Facebook’s privacy policies have arisen in multiple countries, part of a larger social concern about how private information gets used on line. In December, the Federal Trade Commission issued a proposed framework that, among other things, would permit Facebook users to block advertisers from accessing information about their online interests. If that framework is implemented and widely used by Facebook subscribers, it could seriously impair the site’s value as a potential platform for targeted marketing.
What is clear is that Goldman Sachs has a significant interest in Facebook’s financial value, at least for the short term. Goldman Sachs’ decision to invest heavily in Facebook has had some interesting impacts. For one thing, the investment has allowed Facebook an opportunity to postpone issuing an IPO. That means that, at least for the moment, Facebook doesn’t yet have to disclose its finances or publicly address investor complaints.
Goldman Sachs’ investment also puts the firm in an ideal position to handle Facebook’s IPO when it eventually is issued, perhaps sometime next year. That, of course, has the potential to generate substantial revenues for Goldman Sachs’ clients. Google’s 2004 IPO raised an initial $1.2 billion for the company. After all the propaganda, Facebook’s IPO can hardly be expected to raise less. However, there remains a significant question as to whether Facebook’s potential for generating income is more virtual than real. If it turns out that Facebook can’t live up to its potential for generating advertising revenue, venture capitalists who invest for the long term may get burned.
The text is written to answer the question（）
A. Will the social media be the next dotcom bubble
B. Does Goldman Sachs really want to invest in Facebook
C. When will it be the right time for Facebook to issue its IPO
D. What lessons can we learn from the ups and downs of social media
参考答案：A
解析：
文章在第一段就提出了这个问题，说目前社交网站让人想到了15年前网络公司的繁荣景象，但这些网络公司生存至今天的不多，只有像Google和Amazon这样为数不多的公司今天还存在并能挣钱。本文具体分析了Facebook的状况。Facebook靠吸引广告挣钱，但是用户已经就广告商侵犯其隐私权提出了投诉，而Facebook还没有对这些投诉做出公开回应。如果Facebook加强用户信息的保护，得不到这些信息的广告商的利益就会受到伤害，可能撤离Facebook，致使Facebook的收入下降。因此作者说，Facebook挣钱的前景并不乐观。全文的最后一句照应了全文第一句，作者得出的结论是：目前的社交网络很可能会步15年前的网络公司之后尘，被泡沫化。