> I agree with most of what was said except one tiny piece, I don't think we should give up on a universal social network.
That wasn't one tiny piece. The central thesis of the article was against the idea of a universal social network. Literally: "stop dreaming of a universal network."
A tiny piece can be integral. But I would disagree with the idea that it's the central thesis. The rest can operate without it just fine. I would even go as far as to quote you on your interpretation about the article being stop dreaming of a universal network: "Incredibly reductionist interpretation of the article."
That wasn't one tiny piece. The central thesis of the article was against the idea of a universal social network. Literally: "stop dreaming of a universal network."