An excellent article that ought to make people thoughtful about the commodified cultural diet we've all been hooked on for so long, we've forgotten how to be creative, or what it's like to make our own fun.
The commercialisation of television has for decades been the main tool used to turn leisure time into a monumental diversion. A diversion, that is, away from the public sphere, be it communitarian or political involvement.
Social media has of course been touted as a new paradigm for political involvement and activism, and now that's under threat as commercial interests and regulation make inroads.
I'm almost persuaded however that social media was never going to manifest as genuine activism, or even political engagement. Social media is a diverse venue for idealistic discussion that never translates as material action. It is doubtful idealism and materialism are ever reciprocal, at least to any extent where change is effected. But in our wholly commodified lives one has to distinguish between idealism and ideology in any case. Free market ideology is in the ascendency, supremely so, and idealism is a shrunken, withered thing that these days goes by such names as secularism, pragmatism etc.
I agree with the author then that the plugged in public is docile and apathetic--in an induced coma, in fact.
This really is the matrix.

...I think you missed the “first act” Squeers. Social media is a huge game changer, a new paradigm in communication which is doing just that. The Political “Class” are on their collective toes in fact! The Chinese Government harbors a huge paranoia towards freedom of expression through social media, as but one example!

...The secret is out! No more the easy avoidance of scrutiny for Politicians: There is a whistle-blower at every computer now!

On my phone so short.
I'm aware of the optimistice view, but my stated view is that idealism never translates into genuine change. social media facilitates the illusion that things are changing.
what's more, politicians are not the problem in a democracy. the problems always with the seat of power. our politicians are only, at best, public servants. at worst, pawns of private interests, including private ideology.