This theory that the author intends only to disparage digital as a sort of sentimental, rabble-rousing tactic is gaining momentum.
This is not what I took from the article.
Eastman inserted demand for his product way back when, by creating roll film cameras attainable by everyone. Everyone had the means by which to express him/herself photographically using the material Eastman allowed them (roll film, bought from him, processed by him).
In this way, Eastman exploited his consumers for profit.
Folks in Silicone Valley today created Instagram in its various incarnations and with its various appendages.
With Instagram everyone has the means by which to express him/herself photographically using the material provided by Instagram.
Instagram is free, but all of its users' personal habits and logistical information are made available to swarms of marketing companies. In this way, consumers are again being exploited for profit in ways that are much more invasive than what Eastman did.
This is what I took away from the article.
Absolutely bang on IMO!