Certain types of people will always be more comfortable and even gravitate towards the almighty coveted gatekeepers, with their superior understanding of what we should know or not. They will defend their importance and attempt justify their control because it is a safety blanket for deferring personal responsibility. Other people do not accept this model willingly and will challenge any form of information authority, instead seeking information through personally developed peer networks. Both have their blind spots and can succumb to the same pitfalls of ignorance and shaped perspectives, but one scenario leaves someone else to blame if things go wrong (and someone else to shape your perspective), the other scenario leaves the blame only on yourself, which, to someone who spends their life deferring responsibility to structure (which is a large percentage of people); it's just not in their nature.

Oh totally, but anyone can find and present data that can help push their agenda, that's basically the tunnel vision I was referring to as a pitfall of taking on the role of curator, either public or personal. You find what you are looking for and look past what you are not. It's our nature, we don't have the capacity to absorb everything at once.

In my opinion, common sense is the best bullshit detector, just as long as you have some common sense, lol. If someone tells me that something is a certain way as a 'fact', I may or may not be inclined to believe them depending on a number of factors, but I will try to never marry myself to a conclusion, especially not an adopted one. At best they set me on my own path to my own conclusions, which may or may not be challenged down the road, by others or even myself. So, I am consciously self-curating this guys perspective and agenda from my sphere of influence because my common sense tells me his perspective is disoriented (hell, he practically admits it as a symptom of modern society). He can present all the data he likes to back his claims, all that tells me is that in the information age, he has taken enough time to find the data that suits him. I'm confident that someone with equal abilities and time could present an equally strong apposing case. Am I going to take that time? No. Common sense is going to save me the trouble on that battle. He is theorizing about how it will affect us in the future based on data he is gathering to support that claim. We're not going back to the way things were now, so we'll all see how it all comes out in the wash.

One interesting example of that official system can do with amateurs (actually they are not amateurs, but from official POV - they are) if they step on their interests and big money are at stake.

Could this guy be anymore smitten with himself and days of past? He is mad because the status quo he used to feed off of has been dismantled. I agree with his opinions about cat videos, but to single that out as the sole representation of what the internet has to offer is dishonest at best. He separates the "serious" filmmaker from the internet when in reality if you are a serious filmmaker you will have no problem using the internet and taking advantage of it to succeed...and if you're good you will succeed. How many professionals got their big break from the internet? Many! The guy is a bitter elitist. I also find it ironic he is getting his message about his disdain for YouTube/internet content out using YouTube.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Serious professional filmmakers have gotten their big break from internet/YouTube videos.

What exactly is "big break"?

As for other things, I am just tired to ask to first READ book. Guy is wrong in many of his points, but some of the facts and points make your think.