The article raises some interesting ideas but I think it misses some really big things. I've always seen O'Reilly as more of a passionate commenter/pundit as opposed to a influential operator. This isn't to say that he has no influence, but I think he's mostly just synthysizing the Valley zeitgeist. In other words, he seems like an odd target for what I see as a cultural critique. Maybe I'm not smart enough to actually disagree with Morozov, but I find it difficult to see the problem here. Even if Morozov is right, is O'Reilly really the most guilty party and why exactly are the things he is doing bad? For such a long article, there seems to be a lot of unstated assumptions. FWIW I live in SF so maybe I can't see forest for the trees.