Without a “culture of unfettered criticism”, as you say, these very authors’ writings will go un-criticized, their claims will not be challenged, and the quality of their ideas will decline.
This seems like a leap. Criticism being fettered does not mean criticism is absent.
I was quoting PeterBorah; that is the phrasing he used. I kept it in quotes because I don’t endorse it myself. The fact is, “fettered criticism” is a euphemism.
What precisely it’s a euphemism for may vary somewhat from context to context—by the nature of the ‘fetters’, so to speak—and these themselves will be affected by the incentives in place (such as the precise implementation and behavior of the moderation tools available to authors, among others).
But one thing it can easily be a euphemism for, is “actually no substantive criticism at all”.
As for my conclusion being a leap—as I say, the predicted outcome has already taken place. There is no need for speculation. (And it is, of course, only one example out of many.)
This seems like a leap. Criticism being fettered does not mean criticism is absent.
I was quoting PeterBorah; that is the phrasing he used. I kept it in quotes because I don’t endorse it myself. The fact is, “fettered criticism” is a euphemism.
What precisely it’s a euphemism for may vary somewhat from context to context—by the nature of the ‘fetters’, so to speak—and these themselves will be affected by the incentives in place (such as the precise implementation and behavior of the moderation tools available to authors, among others).
But one thing it can easily be a euphemism for, is “actually no substantive criticism at all”.
As for my conclusion being a leap—as I say, the predicted outcome has already taken place. There is no need for speculation. (And it is, of course, only one example out of many.)