The main argument it makes that actually affects its readers is that the social media giants are cracking down on what they consider antisocial behavior. It doesn't seem possible to me to make you "less free" by banning you from doing something that was impossible before the Internet. Alex Jones may not be able to post to YouTube any more, but he's no less free than he was in 2005.
It's vacuously true that Facebook and YouTube are less "free" than they were before they began the crackdown; it needs no article to tell you that. But the Internet is still "free": Jones is welcome to support his own infrastructure.
As far as I can tell, this is little more than yet another person demanding access to other people's resources. Which strikes me as inconsistent with its obvious conservative, libertarian leanings.
Leaving aside how I feel about this, I just want to thank you for this, to me, new idea.
Appealing to people's self-interest doesn't seem like a great argument. How about talking about how it hurts other people that we want to support?
In the specific case of the Internet, the broad and rapid access to raw information can be very powerful if you are able to suitably filter, sort, and use that information to increase the freedoms that are meaningful to you.
(And, of course, the term “freedom” is extremely overloaded today — it may help to be very clear and precise about one’s usage.)
I think it depends on the person, and how they themselves have been affected. Likely the author is trying to reach people who have personally felt the downsides of global interconnectedness.
I thought this was an interesting take, because by most metrics the Internet is unquestionably a success. Goods are cheaper, information is more widely available, long-distance communication is easier and can be more secure, commerce is easier, and so on. But ever since the mid-2000s I've begun to feel the tightening of the noose in terms of freedom. I used to think it was a brief phenomenon, pushback from a stodgy establishment that didn't understand the future. I'm beginning to think that it may be a feature of the technology, especially with the continued centralization of the Internet.