This article was written with good intention, but I think what's happening in real life is proving to be the opposite. Autism and the internet has had decades to defeat the monoculture, but the monoculture succeeds by being less progressive. They label the internet-obsessive as 4chan freaks that don't deserve the time of day, while also trying to commoditize the web with equally dumb tactics. Paid zines and secret clubhouse websites died the moment Substack and Twitter opened their doors to public registration. The freaks and geeks can have their fringe forums, the monoculture won.<p>That's not to say there isn't a kernel of truth to this article. There will always be people that resist because they know it's righteous, or because they've seen how the proverbial sausage is made and can't stomach it. But the monoculture is immensely successful online, moreso than the eccentrics, and with each passing day we're given more proof that nothing we own isn't controlled by the monoculture in some way.
It is not the autism, it's high IQ. high IQ people are more impactful per capita. Online or offline. They write articles that are highly read and can affect policy. Or they lead social movements and put politicians in office. An example is Robert Mercer.
A weak post that keeps getting reposted.<p>Overall that blogger has a unique point of view and worthwhile perspectives but also a lot of superficially offputting noise. This article leans in the latter direction.<p>I find self-diagnosed “autism” to be flocking at its worst, it mocks the seriousness of autism as a disability while spreading ignorance when it comes to underdiagnosed neurodivergences. When we hear some billionaire was diagnosed as “autistic” I’ll note that people like that frequently get worse medical care than we do, see:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Murray" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Murray</a>