On a high level, the author makes some good points -- a lot of remixed content is bad, the quality of the audience matters more than the quantity, a lot of entrepreneurs are just creating courses to help other entrepreneurs pay for classes or create their own courses vs creating an actual more helpful business.

But I feel the author needs to take a few things into account:

1. "Ok" content opens up the door to "good" content which can help you create "great" content

A lot of reporting is not in-depth investigative journalism, it's basically regurgitating what other newspapers have already said. But in a sense, every reporter "pays their dues" by writing on these type of stories, in the hope that doing a good enough job with that will let them tackle harder stories, and maybe one day the investigative journalism stories that they are actually passionate about.

Really it's about building "street cred". By showing you can talk about soft topics in an effective way, many people will be open for you to talk with them about harder topics, which will further cement your credibility, and then slowly move you up to be a subject knowledge expert.

2. A ton of "meh" content can many times beat out "great" infrequent content

Ideally, you would put out great content, all the time. But since many entrepreneurs can't budget for that (takes too much time / energy / money), putting out any content at all can still be beneficial, and can be another entry point for people to find you, discover you, help elevate your product, and give you more of the time / energy / money needed to make better content.

3. It's easier to get Elon Musk/Paul Graham in your followers with a large network than a small one.

In the example in the blog post, the author compares 2000 followers of mostly beginner entrepreneurs to one with just Elon Musk/Paul Graham in their followers, the latter of which is obviously more beneficial.

But to take a step back, how would that have happened? For Elon Musk/Paul Graham to be a follower, they would need to know about you, and recognize you as someone worth following. The most common scenarios might be that they worked with you in the past, or grew up with you. But outside of that, they'd most likely know about you because you were recommended to them from someone else, or they stumbled across you. And for that, you'd most likely need to have a large audience of people that knew about you, so you could eventually get recommended by someone in that audience.

That's not to say that Elon would follow you or you'd get recommended just because you wrote a bunch of articles like "3 ways the Electric car is going to take off", but you might have a better chance than if you wrote just 1 very long form piece of content.

4. Sometimes, people need content "remixed"
Sometimes, content only sticks with someone when they are hearing it from the right person, under the right context, under the right conditions.

If I heard a professor explain Artificial Neural Networks, I might not "grep" it, or maybe it only partially sinks in. But when a Youtube video from someone I follow presents the same information to me "remixed" in a way that I am more comfortable with, it sinks in immediately.

The right person saying the right thing at the right time can make a lot of difference.