The two main insights from the article are:

1. "Web3" is mostly just introducing excludability to the web
2. The non-monetary (psychic) transaction costs of micropayments might be too high and while commons in the extreme are a certain kind of hell so is private property in the extreme

I've heard (2) discussed a lot. I think increasing excludability everywhere is bad, but so are commons have problems too. This is one reason why I think keeping post/commenting costs on SN low is the right move.

This suggests that the main attraction of web3 might not be decentralization, but rather what economists call excludability — it will be stuff people pay for, rather than free stuff.

Imagine if everything you do online required you to decide whether to make a tiny payment. Send an email? Pay a few cents. Read one more paragraph of an article? Pay a few cents. And so on.

It would be an utter nightmare. The psychic cost of having to decide whether to pay a tiny amount for a tiny piece of product, dozens or hundreds of times a day, would be enormous. Some people would just choose not to deal with the hassle, and instead to simply use a ton of paid services and see their bill at the end of the month, like they do when using electricity in their house; but this carefree attitude would naturally lead them to buy far more than they really wanted, and when they saw a few of those monthly bills, they would reconsider.

In the end, most of these users would likely migrate back to either free ad-supported services or to subscription services that only make you think about payments once in a while.