There is a way forward, though. Between the Old Web and GOOG-FB-AMZN's Trinet, we can build something else: the New Web based on decentralized protocols like IPFS, Dat, blockchains, secure-scuttlebutt, and others. That's what I'm working on.
What creates decentralisation is distance and transport costs, not (merely0 prottocols, and definitely not efficiences: they are inherently centralising.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/240xss/the_dop...
Seems like the solution is to begin treating infrastructure as a public utility, but I can hardly imagine that actually happening.
Like guns kill people, right?
By the way, I found your article interesting too. I do think it has a blind spot, in that you're missing a very big addiction that has stayed with us for a long time: work.
Do you have a link to a bibliography where this book appears?
I think the key place where we went wrong is that we envisioned the web as a utility to help expand each person's mind and communication abilities. Instead it's morphing into a service where large groups of people can clan and waste time around the virtual water cooler. It was supposed to be a brain super-power. Instead it's a shared newsletter for angry mobs. It was supposed to free us up to find out amazing things about the world around us. Instead it's freed up the world around us to examine us in exquisite detail. We don't surf the internet anymore. The internet surfs us.
And yes, that sounds a lot like hyperbole, but such is the nature of essays like this. When I wrote "Technology is Heroin" ( http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/02/technology-is... ) I didn't mean it was literally heroin. I meant it was taking on the role that dangerous drugs had in times past. The web isn't literally dying. It's changing into something so different than what we wanted that it is for all intents and purposes dead. Many folks are getting wrapped up in the semantics of the discussion instead of the underlying meaning.
Looking forward to seeing more of your work!