The New Yorker is focused on being verbose and speaking at a more abstract level, so it makes sense there's no concrete recommendations to counter Zuckerberg's

The New Yorker is focused on being verbose and speaking at a more abstract level, so it makes sense there's no concrete recommendations to counter Zuckerberg's current route. Nonetheless, this article seems to have rather minimal information per paragraph, and I'd also at least appreciate learning the opposite of techno-fundamentalism. Maybe an example of perceived benefits in an area where we haven't been 'techno-fundamentalists'? Overall, not impressed.