From the /. summary you'd think the article was saying web sites are gone and it's al doom
TFA is saying what my own experience says:
There are plenty of web sites out there but yes, it's true there's a vast amount of content being generated for and within a smaller number of big social media/aggregators
For instance, lets use Slashdot as an example - how many years have /.ers complained that folks just read the summary/respond to the summary and not TFA? (Oh look how meta, I'm doing it)
Someone could point to Shalshdot and say "oh it's a shame there are no sites anymore",... yet most every article here is pointing at a news or tech site or blog or whatever the source is -
Yes Youtube and Tic-Toc are hosting the content and folks create FOR Them - TWITx and similar are a mix of "content for that site" with links to outside but there are if anything, more sites than ever out there.
TFA mentions that we've kind of offloaded our curation/discovery to the social media sites and algorithms... and it's got a point.. The Internet is a bit of a firehose... it can be hard to drink from it. Social media algorithms do offer to help with that but of course they're optimized not so much to help us discover and delight but to drive revenue...
However I think a bigger issue is that search (yes google I'm talking about you most specifically, but other big players too) has been so co-opted by pay for play placing and also by aggressive SEO and junk content farms spitting out low effort crap designed to abuse and tickle the algorithm that you have to be actively looking for the quality to get it.
It means likely using a meta search engine like SearxNG or similar and likely sticking to desktop rather than mobile ... I know I could not tolerate the current state of the Interwebz without Firefox running NoScript and uBlock Origin.
ok babbling on
TL;DR: no there are plenty of sites - TFA says it well, the summary here not so much.