It's an old argument in new clothing. I tend to think her general theme, constantly evaluating why we recreate and the impact it has, is an important one. Her justifications and details don't hold much water. Backpacker and Outside have been dealing in "secret"places for 2-3 decades. Guidebooks changed the importance of maps and sharing with friends for about as long. Websites have been giving away beta since the early 90s.
But the biggest argument that irks me is the constant need to universalize a hierarchy of use. I prefer multi-day trips that are human powered but that doesn't mean those are inherently the best way. If weekend warriors want to do day trips, snap lots of photos and upload them at the bar with friends then go for it. You could actually make s valid argument that by only going into the shallow distances of public lands they are doing the environment good. Many ideas held as sacrosanct about wild places are being turned on their head by research. for example, wildlife actually seems to be more affected by human powered travelers than motorized or merchandized (length of intrusion and lack of auditory warning).
How we interact with anything as individuals and society is ever changing. Jack Turner had a great essay on this subject in Abstract Wild. It was one of the best but was full of similarly subjective underpinnings. I guess I am just at a point where the nostalgia for how I recreated doesn't need to define how others do now.
I see Rec.gov as an attempt to manage pressure that already existed. I have mixed emotions about the system but most of the places I use that went to it were already experiencing high levels of pressure.
Attached is an interesting article on the issues associated with tourism in Moab and Springdale: