Literally everything about this is without merit. It's a polemic, not a thesis. This evidence free diatribe glorifies a non-specific past where 'abuse' and 'electronic violence' were apparently less prevalent, and raises 'abuse' above censorship on the list of things that threaten the web.<p>Where to start... Twitter, like all other such public blogging services, offers simple quick block and mute tools. These tools won't prevent brigading, but then luckily 'electronic violence', being imaginary, can't harm you. Smaller communities (such as subreddits) are free to exclude members on whatever basis they like - and hence overly sensitive web users can reside in their digital safe spaces to their hearts content. However, when you reside in the commons, you are open to public criticism.<p>To participate in the digital commons is to open oneself up to numerous confounding psychocultural narratives. Some of which are vehement to the point of incoherence. But to close oneself off from the possibility of discussion because of 'abuse' is to be so afraid of disagreement as to wilfully cut oneself off from the possibility of learning from disagreement.<p>Twitter certainly isn't growing at the same rate, but to describe it as 'dying' is ludicrously over the top. Further, to suggest a more virtuous, less 'abusive' past is to engage in a golden age fallacy. Certainly the intellectually and socioeconomically elite users of the early days of the web were more utopian. But to cite 'abuse' as the reason for the authors perceived decline, rather than censorship, balkanisation, advertising, and of course the 'eternal September' is absurd.<p>The kind of 'abuse' the author seems to be arguing against - i.e.: not threats, but vehement group criticism, can be upsetting. But it is of course 'trivial'. Since it can be escaped entirely by switching ones electronic device off, or simply logging off a given service for a few days. It's quite distinct on the one hand, from the relatively rare and extreme mass public shamming addressed by John Ronson's new book. And genuinely threatening harassment (already illegal everywhere in the West) on the other. The writer's solutions 'humility, gratitude, reality' are phatic, non specific and without direction or meaningful content. As is his critique.