I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that a layperson providing a extremely high level analysis of a topic that spans entire academic fields is likely not terribly insightful.
The history of communications networks (just one of the many enormous topics he covers here) is a whole field with piles of academics publishing constantly.
It’s not “extremely high level analysis.” It’s a brief philosophical excursion, and he appropriately disclaims that his opinions aren’t rigorous or even all that informed.
The idea that Tao can’t be insightful while microblogging outside of his field of expertise is silly. We here at HN allow plenty of nonexperts a wide latitude to pretend like they know something of which they have no real knowledge. The result is, I’m sure you’ll agree, occasionally insightful.
The history of communications networks (just one of the many enormous topics he covers here) is a whole field with piles of academics publishing constantly.