I like the sentiment but this could have been a tweet. If it was it wouldn't be preaching to the choir. I am being glib above but in the spirit of useful feedback, the article needs editing for length. It's not that it's badly written, I just found that it took too circuitous a route to make its point.
> the article needs editing for length That's 30 to 45 seconds of reading time. Admittedly it could be shorter, but still, it's not excessive.
However, the appropriate length that the original commenter refers to is, in fact, a tweet.
The reason is simple: the SOTA in internet criticism is quite old whether you read Neil Postman, Mitch Kapor, Sherry Turkle, or David Courtwright. The Turkle and Courtwright quotes are easy to find being more recent. The Kapor quote from the EFF dates to 1993 and so Google et al have found a way to lose it, and if you can find it, you may not be able to read it.