That ideas are not recent is not an argument that they are wrong, it's just an excuse to be historically illiterate yet still claim credibility.
>To take one example, he seems to find the whole notion of a hybrid age, or the singularity, as dangerous technocratic political thinking, something to be stamped out.
No, he finds the idea of a immanent techno-millennium ancient, familiar to most culturally literate people, and articulated more convincingly (or rather more coherently) by people a century ago who were also wrong. He argues that the "hybrid age" is a vacuous restating of a basic condition of man that is not only older than Twitter, but older than books. He argues that the rewarming of these old ideas masks personal agendas of the traditional sort, namely the accumulation of wealth and status by serving the traditional players in their traditional totalitarian political agendas.
You may not agree, but you also are not disagreeing coherently. At least until you can define to your audience what "semantic-social" and "post-political" mean before you use them in an argument.