I think the author's point is inferable from these two observations.
> Creators needn’t be compensated well just because they are creators.
> Neither must useful works of every kind cost nothing to everyone.
Obviously this author knows that if poor quality cheap information proliferates and high quality information remains costly then people will prefer the former to the later.
The author is effecting a denial of the implicit argument of the "post truth" panic, which is that it is important that the public have a high quality and cheap information source.
It's not utterly unreasonable to argue against an assumed premise such as this but it would've been nice if they had been a bit clearer about it.
> Creators needn’t be compensated well just because they are creators.
> Neither must useful works of every kind cost nothing to everyone.
Obviously this author knows that if poor quality cheap information proliferates and high quality information remains costly then people will prefer the former to the later.
The author is effecting a denial of the implicit argument of the "post truth" panic, which is that it is important that the public have a high quality and cheap information source.
It's not utterly unreasonable to argue against an assumed premise such as this but it would've been nice if they had been a bit clearer about it.