I read the book about 2/3 through, then felt I'd gotten the idea. I would second a lot of these criticisms of the author's specific understanding of digital ad markets.

My broader problem with the book was that it seemed to use up most of its space rooting around for a good formulation of the comparison contained in the title: that digital ad markets offer an opaque and sometimes fraudulent form of value, in much the same way as the real estate market hit by the 2008-2009 mortgage security crisis.

It was almost as if the author wasn't fully convinced of his own analogy, like he needed to keep looping back to it to add a few more points to really nail it down. All the while, what the reader cares about is why this analogy is important, not that it can be made!

The book could have been much more effective on these counts, I think, if it had been shorter and better edited.