Well, respected sure, he does write on interesting topics. He's just not a very effective write, he's a story teller, which is good for novels, but annoying for articles like this one.

Anyway, I fail to see the point really of the article. I don't disagree with it, but I doubt that anyone in power cares that Facebook is a zombie, if it still makes money. The only way to really implement a way for consumers to leave these "expired platforms" is to prevent them from forming to begin with. I just don't see how you'd do that, make a law that states that you can't be a social network and a marketplace, or that your users aren't allowed to coordinate event using your platform. They will regardless of you supporting it or not. Half of Twitters features are invented by the users, Twitter just added the features to support the thing the users did anyway.

The article is too fluffed and tries to make a general judgement about platforms that is in reality more nuanced. But I agree with some part of it - platforms are often abused by their owners.

He talks about enshittification and how platforms die from the first sentence -- that's a big part of the topic. But ya, I guess he could have flipped the order, and put the Tik Tok case first, then backed up his hypothesis with the other examples.