I found that the article didn't really make a case for, or against content shock. I'm not quite sure where the theme or the content was going, generally it seems to be a "Not quite sure what's going to happen, let's wait and see". Guess that's fair.
However, this part:
"We’ll ignore the flood of content and we’ll know what speaks to us. What some may see as content shock, some will see as never being able to get enough for our own consumption."
I think that part might warrant a bit of discussion. The one thing I see emerging out of this would be to find a niche, and burn out content just for that niche. Posting content about Twitter? Go deeper. Post only about analytics. Posting about analytics? Post only about engagement analytics. Perhaps become the master in the craft of engagement analytics alone.
Content Shock is real. I feel it myself. I'm following about 25 websites in my "SEO/SEM/Social" section on Feedly, every day or two days it accumulates about 600 articles for me to read out of which I only actually read 25-30 in entirety, perhaps skim over about 100 that interest me during the course of the day. And that leaves about 475 odd articles that don't bother with because it's about something irrelevant or it's a topic that I've already seen enough on already.
90% of the time, it's about topics I've seen enough on already - which is why I skip them. And that's the main reason for content shock. There are too many pieces of "me-too" content out there, and that's what's causing this content shock in the first place. Not enough original content, not enough informed opinion pieces, just too many "5 Ways to Get Higher Twitter Engagement" stuff.