Interesting ideas, but a DNF for now.
At first, I was all in, even wondering how we can teach law students without forcing them to become data packets that profit (the owners of) Westlaw and LexisNexis.
But the tone became so insistent, so determined to scare me. It started to remind me of cable news channels.
Then I hit a statement that didn't pass the smell test (that law firms spend 70% of their budgets on Westlaw/Lexis . . . not, you know, salaries and benefits and expensive square footage for office space). I even clicked on the links in the citation. The linked documents didn't support the statement.
And with that, I lost my confidence in the author. Which maybe is silly of me, because this claim about law firms' budgets wasn't all that important, could have been left out altogether.
The big claims still interest me--about complicity with overreach by law enforcement, about firewalls depriving scholars outside the US & western Europe of access to research, about inaccurate information potentially messing up our applications for jobs, housing, etc. with no recourse. I will at least read her article(s).