The Sound of Silence
I'm trying to take this article in good faith, and I find it difficult, for two reasons:<p>1. The author equivocates online critique and criticism with being 'silenced'.<p>2. The author thinks it's too risky to share "insights about Silicon Valley" online, but does not think it's too risky to advocate for immunity from critique for the already powerful.<p>I understand that the message of this post is to have the listener consider how online discourse tends to coalesce into witch hunts, which is totally valid.<p>The thing is, when I share ideas or controversial takes with my few "trusted friends", I don't expect them to engage me on the surface level without critique or criticism.  I expect them to call me out on my shit (and presumably Paul and Jessica have the same expectation).  The people I trust the most are the people who can critique me most fairly and most accurately, <i>in good faith</i>.<p>By reducing all critique of online 'powerful individuals' as attempts to target and silence them, the author I think misses the bigger issue: it's not the act of critiquing that's the problem with online discourse, it's the shape and manner in which it's conducted.