What I am wondering is why you would question such a (seemingly harmless) call to action. Particulary the last paragraph which simply suggests going forward people might spend less time focusing on learning programming and more time focusing on learning networking. If this "call to action" were to garner any traction, would it impact you personally, or anyone you care about, in a negative way?

No, my point is I think the article is actually arguing for more than just hobbyist networks. I think they ARE trying to reach non-technical users with this plan.

I did not get that impression as the author assumes some readers will be familiar with the "technical" history he describes. Granted, the blog as a whole does not have a necessarily technical focus. Even so, what is the harm if non-technical readers encounter this article.

Regarding creation of new networks, it seems your issue with this article applies more to this internet we are using right now. The one that you imply may have non-technical users reading about creating new networks for "technical" ones.

I don't think this article causes any harm... I am not sure where you are getting that from.

Yes, this article is not addressed to non-technical readers, but my interpretation is that they are wanting technical people to create this "new internet" for the masses.

It is the "for the masses" part of your reasoning I do not understand how you read that into the article.

I think the issue you have is more with the internet ("Internet", capital "I") we are using right now, which is dominated by a www "for the masses" and "content" like this blog. The Internet allows and encourages the type of senseless "content" you are criticising. New networks do not have to be "for the masses", or dominated by a www, their creation and administration does not have to itself be a commercial enterprise, nor do these networks have to be open for commercial use.

IMO, it is the "for the masses" and "open for commercial use" characteristics of this Internet that lead to blog articles like this one. The blog entry is arguably just a means of steering readers to a website, mentioned at the end of the article, that purports to offer training courses to aspiring "revolutionaries".