This is an interesting perspective on the concept of "atomization of the individual", which the interview interestingly does not refer to. Both atomization and the "uni-context" arise from the destruction of an individual's local contexts, like family and community, leaving them an individual in a global, maximally-large pool of individuals, the so-called uni-context.

Atomization has clear motivations: increasing the individual consumer base (no, you shouldn't share your car or lawnmower with your block, you need your own), suppressing democracy, and generally making a population more predictable and easy to manage.

Atomization of the individual seems much more driven by a cultural valorization of liberalism and personal freedom than market dynamics per se. If the individual is free to act on their own, without obligation to their family or higher social structures, such as by marrying whoever they choose or by refusing to share their personal wealth with other members, or by following a different religion, then these higher level structures will eventually wither away. Community can only exist as a real force if the individual has obligations to it and can be bound to it. This has tradeoffs for sure, but I would much rather live in a world with more personal freedom than one where I am bound to a social contract I had no hand in creating and limited ability to change.

It also helps companies to exploit people easily. Example if you have are a fit person, then you should have an apple watch and now perhaps and oura ring as well.

Large companies and organisations are able to tap into our core emotions and needs of the human body and able to shape our day to day in a way we feel that we have the freedom to choose but in reality we are acting within hidden boundaries.

You made me wonder what would happen if I put a sign out front advertising people can borrow my lawnmower for free.

Worst I'd have to lose is a lawnmower.

I don't have a lawnmower or a lawn. But if I did... interesting experiment.