Problem 1: Rushkoff states that connection and not content is and would be the "social currency" of the Internet.
Our experience over the last decade likely renders that observation as partly true as Facebook, Twitter, texting.....have demonstrated the power of "connection".
However, online streaming services such as Netflix, Disney Plus and HBO Max make a strong argument that content is a significant part of any successful strategy - especially your own proprietary content. Simply being a digital library of everyone else's content is not a strategy for success - just look at Netflix. Where would they be without their own content when Disney pulled its content to its own streaming service?
However, today, social currency is your profile and everyone wants it. Facebook, Google, TikTok, Netflix........if you're not paying for content, you are the content.
With so much value placed on your profile and the demographic data it contains, are we leaving ourselves exposed not understanding all the risks of engaging in a digital world?
Problem 2: Disruptive technologies are those that upend an industry and our way of doing things. Oftentimes these changes are for the better however, they can cause rapid and oftentimes turbulent changes as everyone adapts.
Rushkoff's article was written before Amazon, Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter or the first i-Phone. Did Rushkoff completely miss seeing the future because he held strongly held views of what he believed the Internet, "ought to be" or were these technologies so innovative, it was hard to predict their emergence?