I found your essay very interesting, and I appreciate that you summarized the readings before offering your own input at the conclusion. I agree with you that Bylund had quite a bit to say on this topic, but it (for the most part) was very interesting to me. The idea that you explored that consumers are also entrepreneurs stuck out to me in the reading as well, because I had never thought of the situation in that way. When the book was written, I believe the only way that consumers could make their voice be heard is through their wallets. Boycotts clearly showed a company where the consumer's values were, but even smaller groups refusing to purchase anything from a company, or reduce the money spent there, clearly showed the priorities of the consumers. I found it extremely interesting that you brought up the personal data and analytics that are used across the internet these days, as I have never really thought about how it parallels speaking with your wallet.
"I believe in the power of speaking with your wallet. While I find that it does not always work, generally speaking, if enough people decide they want to speak with their wallets, they are heard. I think consumers are unknowingly investing in those moments. I think in the modern world there is also such a thing as time investment. Data collection makes your literal attention valuable now, so what you invest in attention-wise also matters. I find myself going a bit extra with things I enjoy because I know, due to analytics, even my time interacting with said things is measured and valued. A simple example is that for shows I like, I will watch them a bit more repeatedly than others to help ensure ratings with what little I can do."
I've never thought about how the things you companies whose posts you interact with can actually benefit from those interactions, but it's very interesting to think about the support (or lack thereof) that you can show to different entities online. I think we're becoming more and more of a society that voices it's opinions almost solely through the internet, so it's fascinating to think about how that will impact businesses.
All in all I found myself agreeing with your essay. I think Bylund and Hayek both state their cases in a very clear and easy to understand way. I definitely agree with the following statement you wrote about Hayek's thoughts:
"[...]both ends fight each other, while the middle is ideally the fairest but realistically the most uncomfortable. Which of those is appropriate depends on where we place our knowledge in society."
I definitely agree that, as in many other societal or political debates, people from either extreme will argue with each other rather than compromising to the middle, which is often the greatest solution. I think that there are times where the knowledge being centralized can be beneficial, and circumstances where knowledge should be distributed as much as possible, but for the most part I think it should stay at a happy balance between the two.