Naturally, Owen Jones chooses not to mention that too.

No, it seems far better targeted at getting people to stop saying mean things about them on Twitter more than anything else.

But I see your point.

“All over the world, elite institutions from governments to media to academia are losing their authority and monopoly control of information to dynamic amateurs and the broader public. This book, until now only in samizdat (and Kindle) form, has been my #1 handout for the last several years to anyone seeking to understand this unfolding shift in power from hierarchies to networks in the age of the Internet.” --Marc Andreessen

No, they're not. The internet has allowed everyone to be effectively isolated and siloed, and fed pre-approved messages, all while fooling everyone into thinking they are more "connected".

Look at the language: "samizdat", very clever, as if they are revolutionaries. They aren't revolutionaries, they are the vested powers, the most powerful business-people in the world.

Secondly, the vast majority of people I’ve seen commenting on this phenomenon have been extremely minor social commentators, who have very little to gain in terms of personal power one way or the other. Myself included; I won’t be any more or less important if the traditional sources of cultural power and influence succeed or fall.

You don’t have to trust or like VCs, I certainly don’t, but I wouldn’t declare a commentator to be invalid or untrustworthy because a VC really likes their book. That’s straight up guilt by association, and not terribly persuasive.

I used to strongly support the principles of free, uncensored, and anonymous online speech, but it never seems to actually provide any benefits. I now strongly believe that in-person social skills and networks are much more useful, when it comes to getting things done.