Agreed. There's a lot wrong with the article. It touched on mass surveillance, capitalism, government regulation, the gig economy and other issues without reall

Agreed. There'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. In addition, I wouldn't characterize someone who owns an iPhone and a laptop as a "digital dissenter" or a "techno-skeptic", 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 & co. are likened to Luddites later in the article. The article itself suggests that an appropriate term for them might be "humanists", but I guess that wasn't as likely to get clicks as "techno-skeptics." I was also amused by the criticism of Lanier's idea of micropayments for content creators. The objection was that it might encourage people to record clickbait or "hey, y'all, hold my beer and watch THIS!" stunts, as if Youtube isn't already teeming with exactly that sort of content.