PanThe Washington PostGladwell has changed nothing about his oddly solipsistic approach to crafting social theory ... After 24 years of proudly injecting new ideas into the public discourse, doesn’t Gladwell want to use his ample time, money, talent and stature to evangelize for unambiguously unimpeachable ideas? In other words, doesn’t he want to be interesting and correct? ... The book reads as a clear exercise in crafting social theory rather than mere \'reporting,\' which makes the book only as good as Gladwell’s own ideas. And his ideas? They are all built atop an extremely facile metaphor about \'epidemics\' that neutralizes nearly everything he wants to say ... Where Gladwell adds new concepts in this book, they mostly overcomplicate obvious principles or offer unnecessary neologisms ... With hundreds of years of scholarship at his disposal, it’s unclear why Gladwell writes within a quarantined-off universe where only his own theories have any validity.
Taylor Lorenz
PositiveThe Washington PostShe takes a reporter’s approach to cultural history, interviewing many of the most famous (or at least influential) users of various sites and apps. Along the way, she provides a thoroughgoing account of the modern internet, from the perspective of those who have, at one time or another, found ways to mine it for opportunities ... Tapping her deep expertise in the subject, Lorenz makes a strong case that creators — not the tech platforms — truly shaped internet culture ... Infectious in celebrating the tsunami of creative youth culture ... Lorenz gives us a clear and compelling history of how the money came to flow into amateur-made short video content. But the book can’t quite prove that we’ve lived through a true revolution.
