I'm having trouble finding a concrete argument in the article about what, if private content creation is indeed dead, is actually left to blog about. According to the article, a large part of where blogging moved on to seems to be mere social link aggregation and propagation.
Meanwhile, we're reading this on a blog. In fact, here on HN, we're reading blog posts all the time. It seems to me we consume a lot of essays which, shockingly, have not in fact been written by media companies.
I think what's changed about blogging has nothing to do with all that. Instead, it's all largely down to the fact that we moved from automated content aggregation to a human-powered filter. The death of the RSS reader itself was probably in equal parts due to an unfavorable signal-to-noise ratio, context switching costs associated with using the app itself, and social media platforms swooping in as an all-in-one replacement. Google abandoning the platform might also have played a role, though it's difficult to discern cause and effect in this case. HN has replaced Google Reader for me, and I'm sure Twitter and Facebook have done the same for other people. But we're still consuming blog content at the end of the day.