There's only sizzle here, no steak. Almost all your words are spent on not the subject. We get movie dialogue and magazine-writing descriptions, arch and vaguely knowing, along with (linkless) references to magazine interviews about authors rather than the works of the author's themselves. (If you can't be bothered to read 700 pages of Shoshana Zuboff, you might at least point your readers to her own New York Times capsule versions.)

But there's nothing like an idea of your own underneath the scrim. The "metaverse" and "reality privilege" is all technical nonsense, as Ethan Zuckerman and I and lots of others have pointed out. No, we are not ten years away from simulated reality neurologically indistinguishable from real. Absolute crap said by Marc Andreessen promotuing his investments doesn't cease to be crap because he said it. You report this solemnly (or as solemnly as your arch magazine writing style will permit. But we can't get to meaningful insights by syllogism on false premises.

So what are we left with? Surveillance capitalism is bad and politically dangerous, and if the parasite with the mind of God could directly attach to the human neural system with going through the eyes and ears attached behaviorally to the smartassphone interface that would be even worse. Yes, I agree, that's how I taught the asubject. Improving this draft means going further, not in the decoration but in the substance.