Agreed. There&#x27;s a lot wrong with the article. It touched on mass surveillance, capitalism, government regulation, the gig economy and other issues without really tying them together in any coherent way.<p>In addition, I wouldn&#x27;t characterize someone who owns an iPhone and a laptop as a &quot;digital dissenter&quot; or a &quot;techno-skeptic&quot;, but the story uses both of these terms to describe Taylor and some of the other subjects of the article. I think these are both poorly chosen terms that smack of Luddism and, unsurprisingly, Taylor &amp; co. are likened to Luddites later in the article. The article itself suggests that an appropriate term for them might be &quot;humanists&quot;, but I guess that wasn&#x27;t as likely to get clicks as &quot;techno-skeptics.&quot;<p>I was also amused by the criticism of Lanier&#x27;s idea of micropayments for content creators. The objection was that it might encourage people to record clickbait or &quot;hey, y&#x27;all, hold my beer and watch THIS!&quot; stunts, as if Youtube isn&#x27;t already teeming with exactly that sort of content.