I'd argue that the 'maturity' rhetoric expresses something different. The point behind Morozov's (and others') criticism is that difficult social/policy issues cannot be solved through individual citizen/consumer action alone. I think the main criticism is that silicon valley often acts from within isolation. 'Disrupting' consumer behavior is not enough to drive social or political change in many cases.

The arrogance that people speak of when they refer to silicon valley is one of ambition. People in the valley envision replacing traditional law-making with crowdsourcing, but forging public policy is far too difficult for a solution that simple.

To those who make these criticisms, the stereotypical startup founder claiming that their product will cause meaningful social and/or political change is naive. They also make the claim that such a 'solutionist' approach will often worsen, not better, the problems that such a product addresses.

The fact that a handful of technology leaders are attempting to work with the existing political infrastructure reflects a newfound maturity in the culture - one of collaboration and modesty. Where previous technologists looked at the existing infrastructure, muttered "we can do better", and failed, these people are simply trying to say "we can help".

I have my own viewpoints about big data, but they could stop with the mystic nonsense and just actually specify what they're talking about, but that does not mean they implied that "the real political players play".

In this section, I take "maturity" to mean that Zuckerburg et. al. have had to emulate what others have done: "diving deep into the political mud". A technological or any other type fix seemingly cannot work (according to this commentator). Only big money (elements represented by FWD.us) and "political hacks" can get the job done. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.