I was overly dismissive in referring to its contents as tangential (it’s a framework for analyzing media that makes some vague but bold claims about what constituted effective content on varying mediums for media at different points in time).

But he can be “famous” and the material can be relevant and the original point can still stand — they found something sufficiently relevant and mysterious and famous enough to point to as an external appeal to authority to justify the sale ads on the serving of visual opium to children. I don’t think that would have been McLuhan’s cup of tea, eh? But if you do it in his name, maybe it’s easier to swallow.

I’m frankly puzzled at your assertion that this is a rare, out-of-print book when it’s the top search result on Amazon for “Marshall McLuhan” and costs $31.22 in paperback: https://a.co/d/dhOl4EJ

Your claim that “you can find it pretty regularly on biblio for ~$150” seems approximately true if you insist on only buying a first edition hardcover, which is fair enough. I don’t know what changed between the first edition and the 1994 edition currently available on Amazon. But if the Meta execs are sticklers for the first edition in particular, that’s an indication that they’re taking the ideas in the book more seriously rather than less.

> I was overly dismissive in referring to its contents as tangential

You also referred to it as “basically completely unfollow-able”. In other words, you weren’t really able to follow or grasp what McLuhan was writing. Maybe it’s not your fault and McLuhan was just writing incoherent nonsense—I can’t say either way since I haven’t read him—but this admission on your part undermines your attempts to assess the relevance of Understanding Media to Meta’s business model.