He didn't make that claim, that's a strawman. The social media things are not the normal web anyway. His point isn't complaining about his audience issues, it's about the closed silo nature of these systems that give them massive power as gatekeepers in ways that the normal web doesn't.
> People are smarter now.
Now that's just the rantings of a myopic futurist-cultist.
Was it not implied from reading the whole article?
>social media things are not the normal web anyway.
What is normal? If billions of people are using social media would that not be normal still? How many people have to do a certain behaviour for it to become normal?
>> People can find [other] people who share the same ideologies in the social media platforms described.
It is a close silo.
>Now that's just the rantings of a myopic futurist-cultist.
Now that's just the rantings of a pessimist. How about things like the Flynn effect. Or do you have proof that people are not getting smarter or people are getting dumber?
Re: pessimism vs futurism etc., you're the one that made the "people are getting smarter" claim, which is quite bold and demands evidence. I'll grant that it's possible that more percentage of people are getting adequate nutrition, health care, and education such that they are potentially more intelligent, but there's no basis for just asserting that an educated, well-nourished person today is generally any smarter than someone of that status from generations ago. So the curve is more about the percentage of people with decent health and education, and that's not something that leads to a conclusion of ever-increasing future intelligence.