On his blog Culture Two, Brian Droitcour explains why he hates Post-Internet art.
The argument he calls knee-jerk -- “How can we be post-internet when internet is still here? Shouldn’t it be during-internet?” -- always spoke eloquently to me, ha ha. Droitcour doesn't completely disagree because he writes "the internet is always changing. The internet of five years ago was so unlike what it is now, to say nothing of the internet before social media, or the internet of twenty years ago, or the internet before the World Wide Web. Why insist that the changes are over?" Rather than focus on the past or even present, he thinks we should give more thought to what the internet is becoming, and our place in it. Focus on "proto-" rather than "post-," he suggests. Sounds good to me.

There was some confusion in the comment thread about post-internet definitions and who was using which so I chimed in:

Marisa Olson used the term post-internet differently than Gene McHugh did, as you summarized McHugh's definition here. He said the "post-" referred to a historical moment when the internet changed from geeky/amateur to everyday/professional. Olson used it to describe her own art practice, consisting of performances in real space or on video that referenced internet-specific content, such as "Abe and Mo Sing the Blogs." Her definition is closer to the type of art you are criticizing here, for example, objects presented by The Jogging for gallery consumption that refer to internet content (and also reflect back by being "internet ready" in terms of lighting, camera angles, etc.). The way art galleries are using the term "post-internet" now is exactly the way Olson used it and you are right to critique it. What may work for her as an individual artist is a poor statement of general principal.
You make a good point that it's all still changing. Net neutrality may end; every country has its own rules for permissible traffic. The big internet companies are constantly working to gather users into "silos." We'll be truly post-internet when you hear sentences such as "Was that on Facebook or the internet?" Or "which internet -- the public one or the fast lane one?"
(McHugh’s blog is still available on the Internet Archive, by the way, at http://web.archive.org/web/20120422161041/http://122909a.com/)

Here's how the discussion from the previous post might look using twitter's new design:

tommoody: in its options for comment display (oldest, newest, best) disqus defaults to best, which means "most upvotes" in developerspeak

tommoody: the livefyre comment company refers to its most liked (shouldn't that be lyked) comments as "top comments" rather than "best"

tommoody: when in fact, the "best" or "top" comments could be the ones no one "likes" because they're "ahead of their time"

20bux: the comment royalty will soon return to power and tell us which comments are truly top

tommoody: ha ha re: the "comment royalty" -- I'd settle for "oldest" and "newest" and no determination of "best" at all

20bux: yes..... the light of god will shine down upon those worthy comments and their Topness will be self evident

tommoody: reading skill makes the Topness of comments not have to be self-evident and maybe that is a form of divine intervention

Here's one of those delightful conversations from the Twitter attention-sinkhole:

tommoody: in its options for comment display (oldest, newest, best) disqus defaults to best, which means "most upvotes" in developerspeak

tommoody: the livefyre comment company refers to its most liked (shouldn't that be lyked) comments as "top comments" rather than "best"

tommoody: when in fact, the "best" or "top" comments could be the ones no one "likes" because they're "ahead of their time"

20bux: the comment royalty will soon return to power and tell us which comments are truly top

tommoody: ha ha re: the "comment royalty" -- I'd settle for "oldest" and "newest" and no determination of "best" at all

20bux: yes..... the light of god will shine down upon those worthy comments and their Topness will be self evident

tommoody: reading skill makes the Topness of comments not have to be self-evident and maybe that is a form of divine intervention

20bux leaps to the conclusion that the initial statements were a call for gatekeepers to come back and reclaim comment evaluation from the bean counters, and offers skewering sarcasm. Yet prescient ideas could be overlooked by an editorial elite as well as the voting public ("ahead of their time" could apply to either). Without editors or algorithms, only divine agency is left, scoffs 20bux. Well, no, individual close reading and autodidacticism are still available to us as Turing-complete users. It means you have to skim through all those comments and decide for yourself what is worthwhile. OMG, can that even be done.

Update: Revised and reposted to clarify that the subject is comment evaluation, not moderation. The above dialogue anticipated Twitter's plans to prioritize tweets by typographically enlarging the "best" or "top" tweets based on fav counts, which will now be posted under each tweet.