The Sound of Silence
I'm trying to take this article in good faith, and I find it difficult, for two reasons:1. The author equivocates online critique and criticism with being 'silenced'.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.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.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, in good faith.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.