Well, I read the article. It's not that great.

Why? Because it's a mix 'n match of quotes, bits and pieces and observations cobbled together to support the thesis that digital technology will disrupt how information - and therefore our thinking about the world - is controlled.

It's not that he's factually wrong about what he's saying. Rather, it's that the article lacks any references to a foundational understanding of historical dynamics and current affairs regarding economics, politics or economics.

Everything he discusses has a historical context steeped in competing ideological, economical and political theories that have shaped the world since World War 1. And yet, he makes no mention that background whatsoever. On the contrary.

For instance.

> Like a fish in water, we’re unaware of the integration between our education system, the corporate structure, and our media environment.

Uh. No. There's very much awareness about this among those who have participated in this debate and who are extremely worried about the state of education in America. And it's a debate about investing in public infrastructure, the advantages and drawbacks of free market dynamics in education and the long term impact on future generations.

For instance, Mary Sue Coleman, president of the Association of American Universities and former president of the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa, wrote in the Washington Post back in 2016:

> Public higher education is at a tipping point in the United States. It is an essential public good that is suffering from an unprecedented erosion of public support, with potentially devastating consequences for our students and our economy.

> If our country continues to disinvest, we will be abandoning an essential feature of American democracy. This is what is at risk: the means to educate the broadest possible swath of our society, for the betterment of society, with full public support. Public institutions, especially, educate large numbers of students from all walks of life — particularly low-income, first-generation and underrepresented students. We cannot lose sight of that, particularly as our society grows more diverse.

> We need to remind ourselves as a nation of higher education’s true value and its return on investment, not only to the individual but to society. Our collective progress and prosperity hinge on quality higher education. It is the strongest argument we have for lifting up our public support of this critical public good.

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, has voice his concerns at various times about the impact of education economics on higher education:

For instance, in 2010 - https://robertreich.org/post/2420649887 - and in 2012 -https://robertreich.org/post/18496069594.

Even John Oliver pointed out in 2015 how nefarious standardized testing is on the quality of public education, how it is driven by market economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k

And then there's the policies of current Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos which haven't done anything but accelerate the overall decrease of quality in education and contributed to the overall widening of the equality gap in american society. As evidenced in this scathing article from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/betsy-devos-...

Those are just a few examples. Education is a huge topic in it's own right with very heated debates in their own right. Buried below those highly visible examples are large groups of lobbyists, experts, unions, companies, non-profits, activists, academic researchers,... who have produced entire libraries filled with theories, frameworks, models, opinions,... that describe this field.

Simply referring then to "digital technology is going to disrupt the monopoly on information" is quite a reductionist view of that complexity.

And that's just the part of his essay that touches on education.

The fact that the article lacks a clear understanding of the historical complexity that underpins the construction of his theory about the current state of American society, is of less concern to me.

When I read this, it stood out to me as written by someone who has a background in media. On LinkedIn, he mentions that his education is a BA in Media & Arts. Now, there's aboslutely nothing wrong with that. But his background clearly define his writing. Someone who has a degree in education studies or social studies will arrive at a very different take on american society.

However, what truly concerns me is that instead of going deeper and doing the research, looking for context and these debates, interviewing people and looking for insights, he chose to write in isolation and conjure his own theory on american society and the role of media, education and politics.