That goes against everything you just said. Facebook is forcing interest, not panic-buying.
Instagram was ok, but that's really not the thing we are talking about here.
(As far as it goes though, facebook needs instagram. They would have been better of not selling out. Instagram needs facebook, like it needs a bad foot, a shot liver and a glass eye. Same for g+ and yt.)
It might be a bit confusing as I wrote it, because I was not making a clear distinction between fb the company and fb the website.
I personally see the website as some sort of cancer.
And yes they are panic buying. They buy more stuff than they come up with. Of course saying "panic" is pure pathos. My point was that they are buying more products and they are not developing anything worthwhile. Who gives them money? I wouldn't.
A company that has no real product and line of income buys rights to unfinished products and other companies that have no line of income, for completely outrageous prices. Why do I say "panic buy"? It's pretty much their only option to stay relevant, as long as they don't magically start to innovate on their own.
The people who are throwing money at this are not doing it, because the company is worth anything at all. They are doing because of the reknown of the brand name only. If you look at how much it would cost to recreate all their services without the brand and IP crap attached, it's pretty much worthless.
Zuck wasn't hiding their balance-sheet for years for fun.
There are enough people willing to gamble. Most of them don't care about risks involved and most of them get hyped by the idea of the outrageous share's price easily.
I personally however can't see a way how to call that stock cheap. People who bet on it getting even more expensive as it already is are just speculating.