The arguments here are pretty well-considered, but I also disagree with almost all of them. The problem is that it is using measurements invented by those who r

The arguments here are pretty well-considered, but I also disagree with almost all of them. The problem is that it is using measurements invented by those who rose to power through the industrial revolution to prove how it was more impactful than recent revolutions. It's as if the author were trying to prove how the first industrial revolution was a disappointment because it resulted in slower growth in worldwide feudalism. The invention of broadcast television and radio increased instant access to information more than the Internet, but old media only allowed a few broadcasters. As more people gained access, fewer had a voice. This trend continues in recent times. In 2012, 6 companies controlled 90% of the American media, down from 50 in 1982. http://read.bi/16Yhrsh http://read.bi/16Yhrsh But as old media was consolidating, the Internet was diversifying. People upload 5 hours of video to YouTube every second, up from 1 hour per second in 2012. http://bit.ly/1gMtN7t http://bit.ly/1gMtN7t The Writers Guilds of America combined have around 25,000 members, but more than 1 billion people across the world use YouTube and can reach nearly any American. The top contributers are more popular with teenagers than mainstream celebrities. http://bit.ly/1aEn1vb http://bit.ly/1aEn1vb So which has more impact: distributing a single story to many people, or allowing more people to tell stories? The choice of what is measured determines the value of the measurement, and not just in media penetration.