It's an interesting and well-made video, but I'm at the 3 minute mark and I'm already suspicious of some of his argumentation. He says, essentially, that before the Internet (or "network") the only thing historians relied on was "books." But, of course, that isn't true. We have oral histories and interviews (what people tell us verbally rather than in writing), material history (ranging from things like the condition of corpses, which can tell us about nutrition and what people ate, to ancient artifacts like jugs, pottery, or weaponry which can tell us about an ancient culture's technology), and statistics, to name just a few. While I'm making my way through the rest of his video now, just off the top of my head it seems to me like he's conflating a wide variety of sources underneath the "books" header. :o