The author winds up answering "no" to his own question. By thus rendering the entire point of his own article moot, he ironically reveals it to be exactly the t

The author winds up answering "no" to his own question. By thus rendering the entire point of his own article moot, he ironically reveals it to be exactly the type of pointless content that could lead one to question whether we do have too much of it. I think ultimately it says something good about the tremendous wealth of our society that we can afford to support huge industries employing millions to do nothing but create trivial content. Before mass production people would make textiles at home as piecework, but it was grueling, boring work that paid a pittance. In the current age people can make quite a comfortable living creating online content at home, all while themselves consuming podcasts or peeking at TikTok clips.