I would wager that a comment flippantly (and ignorantly) disparaging a very useful site which unleashed quite a bit of creativity everywhere, is much much lamer.
Flickr's interesting because it's a Web 2.0 darling. There was an article I read that stated that Photobucket got 7x the traffic of Flickr but Flickr got 40x the press mentions of Photobucket. Facebook now owns the online photo-hosting market. The big weakness of Flickr is that its main interaction model is between photographers - Facebook's is between photographers and people in photos.
Flickr may be a cool technology but in a business sense it's an also-ran.
What is the definition of "traffic" in this case? Page views? Regardless, "traffic" is not a basis for determining the value or even the popularity of a site.