1) "Given that Facebitchbook and Google are free to use then there's not in fact any inequality at all between our access to these things. So I do argue that, given that I think consumption inequality is the most important of the three, inequality is falling as a result of the digital revolution; that tech that y'all spend your time upon."
-So you say "consumption inequality" is falling as a result of the digital revolution
While citing :
"Silicon Valley, after all, has done little to equalise things like home ownership and there is no prospect of it ever disrupting the world of real estate."
-Which shows Morozov believes that the effect of the digital sector is only marginally important considering that its affects have very little knock (he uses Real estate as an example I believe).
Would you like to offer a real reason that why "consumption inequality" is falling overall as a result of the the digital revolution, such as the manner in which free email reduces the effects of poor diet (which are said to be increasing) , or how every body having access to the same web browser (assuming when you say 'everyone' you mean westerners who care to use the internet) balances early death becaue you can't afford the same medicines as the rich?
2) "is that there's three different types of inequality". Unfotunately, there are more types of inequality than 3 such as 'inequality of opportunity' (why do Eton dropouts stil do better that state school graduates?)
3) "Simply being around lots of other human beings increases economic output as there's more interaction and experimentation. That's also what makes housing more expensive in cities."
-Is it really? In that case I assume you can cite rearch that shows the cost of housing is directly related to economic output? So by your reckoning Monaco's economuic output is double Londons and nearly 10 time's Berlin's (here http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/most-expensive-cities)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
