Fundamentally, the problem is its often very difficult to tell the difference between the brave iconoclast shining a light on sensitive issues, and the troll or

Fundamentally, the problem is its often very difficult to tell the difference between the brave iconoclast shining a light on sensitive issues, and the troll or worse, looking to cause harm to others. Is David Duke a dangerous voice for bigotry, or a brave man speaking out against a system? What about the famous Dutch cartoonist? Brave satirists, or racist firestarters? What about Ilhan Omar? Defender of Palestinian rights or anti-Semite? Is a sensitivity reader shining a light on an author's potential biases and blind spots, or are they a tool for censorship? Are k-pop groups on Twitter posting into alt-right hashtags disrupting communication among hate groups, or censoring alternative viewpoints? All of this is a matter of judgement. Many would say that, hey, it doesn't matter, speech should be free and unfettered without exception. Sticks and stones, etc. The danger of censorship is too high. Those in victimized groups, subject to harassment or worse, enabled by social networks and so forth, would profoundly disagree. After all, it's easy to say that now after decades of progress for victimized groups. It reminds me a lot of anti-vaxxers today questioning the need for the measles vaccine. To them the disease is just a memory, the side effects are more dangerous. And that's ignoring the fact that there's still unbelievable amounts of hate directed at victimized groups online. This author may have a very valid point. Maybe self-censorship is happening at a rate above what is desirable. But if my neighbor pops up online and advocates for white power and racial purity, you're darn right I want him to self-censor.