Why should anyone not be permitted to put forward the opinions of third parties, if those people share those opinions? It's surely a given that someone who posts a third party's opinions does so precisely because they share those opinions - why are they any less valid just because someone else has published them in an on-line publication?

I'm perfectly happy for others to disagree with the fact-based opinions given in the article I linked to on the basis of their substance. But sneering at those opinions because of their means of publication, not because of their substance, really doesn't cut the mustard, does it?

So, instead of sneering at Facebook, tell us what doesn't hold water in the article, and why it's deficient.

And, FYI, trying to insult me by calling me Backwardsman (with or without the upper-case 'B') has no effect on me whatsoever - Richard Bridge and several others beat you to it by a number of years. It says more about them and you than it does about me.