It probably is propaganda, in a way.
The authors are probably Idealogues for the 'new technologies' movement, who think all this new media and decentralistion of life is ushering us into a new age - when in fact it's just being invaded by the old players, more or less.
Actually, there is a bit of a split in sociology between two schools of thought: and interestingly this may underly the disagreement between Huxley and the authors.
On the one hand there is the 'post-industrial/post-modern' school of thought that takes society to have moved on from the 'Fordist', early20th century - 1970s age of centralised production processes (scientific management of production and ‘top-down’ organisation), and to have entered the age of decentralisation (autonomy, bottom-up control). On the other hand, there is the school of thought (usually populated by neo-marxists) which thinks the former school of thought is misguided, and that while there have been developments, the economic base is still more or less centralised and coordinated (by the capitalist/state partnership) like it was in Huxley's time - just that it appears, on the surface, as though society is less centralised.
Any aside from all this, the authors just can't handle that Huxley was a bit of an elitist, and hated innane culture - and they know, if only implictly, that their own YouTube channels and Tumblr pages are the embodiment of mediocre.