I think there are some interesting points in here but I am having a lot of trouble with the language. A lot of the time I cannot be certain what a given sentence is actually saying.

I'm continually confused by how the word "psychic" is used, for instance. Unfortunately, writing of this sort makes me skeptical of the value of the article, as it signals an odd mental model I can't properly connect to.

I.e.:

> Telework is not an institution, but a constitution, a mental frame in which the new work effort can move. Psychic, to begin with: what used to be called immobility is now the point of departure for delivering labour performance.

Eh? Is this just a weird way of saying "work at distance"? So telework is telework?

> An axiom of self-realisation has been slapped onto telework in passing: you're only someone if you're in business. No activity, no identity. Pepped up, in shape and evaluated for performance, the individualised mass must be brought into a state of readiness for digital piecework.

This might be a criticism of a everyone-must-have-a-job-to-have-identity mentality, but I cannot be sure, and I'm not sure how it makes sense, since that mentality is definitely present right now in the US, but telework is not all that common still. But I might be misinterpreting that sentence.

> A feeling of urgency must be created, the feeling that unless we all do something about it, everything will end posthaste in decadence, crime and entropy. There is delight that the masses will once again have something to do and can once again be kept on a leash. At home we are experiencing a science-fiction invasion: the spaceship is ensconcing itself in the living room and the feeling of being on a virtual trip through space imposes itself.

I would say this is just plain nonsense. I don't think this sense of urgency is needed by anyone or ever was and I do not believe the article provides evidence for it. A lot of things are said, but nothing is proven.

I think isolation is caused by reduction of the value of religion and no corresponding social replacement for structures such as churches (see first/second/third place concepts). This in turn makes alternative means, which are currently digital, more popular. But not just them, I think Meetups perform a similar function. But, hey, saying things is easy, proving them is another matter.

What I generally find missing in articles like this is some... balance, I guess? It always smells of age-old criticisms of technology combined with criticisms of people who do not socialize as much as some in society believe is proper, and since that sect has always existed throughout history, it's hard to separate its inherent bias against what I would call "nerds" from good points.

The articles sound like they were written by people to whom the internet is of absolutely no use, so they do not really understand it, and can only see its shallow applications, and shallow applications (of which I consider Facebook a type) generally do not look great. So the entire field gets vilified and used as a scapegoat for society's problems, in this case as an evil force that weakens labor rights. Strangely enough, fields generally get worse as more people join them, not because the fields themselves are bad, but because all the worlds problems now get encoded in them as well.

McLuhan has a similar problem with being overly fatalistic but he's a lot more readable.

It would be more interesting to read a criticism of the internet by someone who uses it in more advanced ways.