Some leftists argue that the internet is fostering an alternative to private individual wealth in the form of the common, something akin to what the government once marshaled resources for when it used to provide a safety net. The Tea Partyers reject the common, reject government guarantees of basic levels of welfare for all — they are completely on board with the neoliberal program that basically thrusts workers into a Hobbesean war for survival.
Everyone has the "right" to fend for themselves, and it is more important that nobody get a "handout" than some sort of social standard of living be upheld. Their solution to the lack of opportunity is not that different from Lanier’s: more extreme neoliberalism, more privatizing, redoubled efforts to find profit opportunities in everyday practices.
But does Lanier think that the kids who use social media as a consolation are consciously on board with that ideology? Seems as likely that they are more idealistic about what online "sharing" might portend for society, if they ascribe a politics to their practice.