> but it's silly to claim that they're "unprofitable" without acknowledging that they could be if that was their goal (or refuting that point).
But you do the exact opposite. You are claiming that they could be profitable but you don't back it up. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you haven't flushed out your point at all.
I too could say that General Motors could be profitable, they'd just have to stop paying pensions, salaries and leases on equipment.
So the question to you is how can Facebook be profitable if they pay out more than they take in?
But you do the exact opposite. You are claiming that they could be profitable but you don't back it up. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you haven't flushed out your point at all.
I too could say that General Motors could be profitable, they'd just have to stop paying pensions, salaries and leases on equipment.
So the question to you is how can Facebook be profitable if they pay out more than they take in?