I too took particular issue with the second point; among other possible criticisms, the categorical statement that "the status quo is a bad thing" seems to comp

I too took particular issue with the second point; among other possible criticisms, the categorical statement that "the status quo is a bad thing" seems to completely miss the idea of "embedded wisdom." Surely this idea should be familiar to anybody who's spent enough time reading about software development? I suppose the point could be interpreted to mean "investigate the assumptions of the status quo and find out which ones are no longer valid" - but then, that's not what Thompson wrote. As to points one and three - I don't buy that "free speech is good" is no longer the default and I don't see much in this essay that shows otherwise. The example given (Youtube censoring perspectives that contradict the WHO, despite the WHO itself having disseminated falsehoods) leads directly to the questions: should Youtube not have been allowed to make that decision? And if not, how should they have been prevented? As to the third point - revisiting the example just discussed, surely the WHO's communications (of which Thompson seems critical) could be seen as an example of an organization hewing to the very default he asserts as valuable? Move fast with your communications, value early release over perfect certainty, etc.