"Not because the ideas are necessarily controversial in their own right, but because anyone could twist them to seem controversial if they were sufficiently mot

"Not because the ideas are necessarily controversial in their own right, but because anyone could twist them to seem controversial if they were sufficiently motivated to." I don't know if you're doing it deliberately, but this is what you're doing. > The author equivocates online critique and criticism with being 'silenced'. She uses the word "silenced" exactly once. There is no indication that, for example, she considers "people aren't saying anything because they don't like the tone of their online criticism" to be the same problem as, for example, "people aren't saying anything because they're scared of getting arrested". If you think she's comparing two things that aren't alike, you need to be more explicit. > does not think it's too risky to advocate for immunity from critique for the already powerful She is not in any way doing this. "How do we solve this problem? I don't know, but I hope there is a solution." That is not the same as "clearly, we need to solve this problem by making people immune from criticism". > reducing all critique of online 'powerful individuals' as attempts to target and silence them She describes one type of criticism. She does not say that all criticism takes this form.