Humans are diverse. Choose randomly a few thousands of them -- you will find geniuses, retards, saints, and psychopaths in your sample. If you do something tha

Humans are diverse. Choose randomly a few thousands of them -- you will find geniuses, retards, saints, and psychopaths in your sample. If you do something that a few thousand people will notice and care about... it's probably going to be nasty. Somewhere in that sample will be an mentally unstable person who just got an idea that you ruined their life and therefore deserve a "punishment". Do something impactful and insufficiently obscure, and you will meet some of the worst humanity has to offer. Not sure what could be a solution. Perfect anonymity (or work-related pseudonymity; imagine everyone being Hannah Montana) and elimination of all crazy people seem both impossible. But without both of them, being famous inevitably means being noticed by crazy people. The proper way to react to a death threat is to report it to the police. And by "police" I mean neither Twitter nor newspapers. (Now, a tangential but potentially interesting thought: If it is true that pretty much all famous actors get death threats and other nasty stuff -- or let's say half of them do -- what makes media decide which of these case will be reported, and which will be ignored? What is the larger narrative these stories need to fit into? For example, if a mainstream journalist gets an opportunity to suggest that an audience of a famous movie is quite insane, would they rather choose Star Wars or e.g. Sex and the City as the example? What rule of thumb would they follow?)