tl;dr IMHO this is the Hacker News version of a New York Times Op-ed article, in both the good and bad sense. IMHO this article is a lot of very well-argued, r

tl;dr IMHO this is the Hacker News version of a New York Times Op-ed article, in both the good and bad sense. IMHO this article is a lot of very well-argued, rational suppositions and hypotheticals. It's an op-ed piece masquerading as a watertight argument. And it depends on a lot of "what-if's". One assumption depends on the other and in each case it comes down to "this is what I think is logical". Maybe he's right, maybe he's not, but the thinkpiece is riddled with (reasonable) assumptions when there are probably studies or reports that have been done which could have been referred to and cited for a higher degree of certainty. I feel like there are plenty of political scientists, people studying the internet, or just other studies, etc, which at this point have researched in depth the 2016 election, and while citing Nate Silver is a great start, if you want to make an argument for what's true, then that's insufficient. And plenty of people making a serious study of online censorship and freedom of the press.