Now, the stock answer for this is "They are selflessly speaking out on behalf of all the people without their riches and platform, and that's a good thing."

But here's where a lot of the criticism of both the letter and specific signatories come in... https://twitter.com/ellle_em/status/1280887719716171776

If you *don't* have JK Rowling's reach, if you're just somebody with a couple dozen or couple hundred or even a couple thousand followers, it doesn't really take more than one person with a bee in their bonnet and a larger (not even huge) platform to mess up your life.

And that can be messing up your social media platform, it can be messing up your support circles, it can be messing up your professional life, and if all of those things are tied together, it can be all at once.

Now you're thinking, "Yes! Yes! And so it is GOOD that they're speaking out against that."

You know what a lot of cases where one person gets mobbed have in common?

The people mobbing think they're fighting cancel culture. Or "SJWs", earlier. Or "PC police", earlier still.

Stirring up fear of this bogeyman, whether you call it Cancel Culture or SJWism or PC Police or whatever, it does nothing to prevent pile-ons. It creates them, encourages them. In many cases it creates circular firing squads of people trying to cancel the cancellers.

You know what one message that rich and powerful people with a lot of reach could co-sign that would eliminate a lot of that?

A pledge to use their platforms responsibly and think about their reach vs. others' before wading in.

I know a lot of people who like that letter aren't going to agree with my view of J.K. Rowling's social media activity or her gender ideology so for the sake of this conversation let's not even argue about that.

Let's say she took the stance that "I, a factual billionaire with a loyal following and a lot of people watching from the sidelines for some drama, must realize that directing people's attention to someone in an argument is pointing firehoses full of bees at them, so I shan't."

J.K. Rowling, with that stance firmly in mind, could continue to think what she thinks and even say what she says, and there would be fewer "cancel culture pile-ons" that drive people off the internet, screw up people's lives and support systems and businesses, etc.

I'm just talking about her, her personally, doing that. If she were doing it as part of a movement where a bunch of other people with similar standing did the same? The effect would be greater. And if they encouraged, successfully, some... even just some... of their following?

Now the stock answer to this is "So people get to accuse JK Rowling of encouraging child abuse or dunk on her all day and she just has to be SILENT and TAKE IT? What about her free speech?"

She doesn't have to be silent. Still and always, no one can actually shut her up.

I have all of 42,000 followers or so on here, I think. You know what I've been cutting back on more and more with every new influx? QTing someone, anyone who doesn't have a similar footprint to mine or bigger, to voice criticism or disagreement. Won't say I never do it.

But boy howdy have I become aware, hyperaware, of the impact of me doing that. I feel a weight and recognize a responsibility, even with my moderate following. I know nothing I do can contribute to a pile-on more than singling someone out like that.

"So you censor yourself."

I *control* myself. Follow me for a day and you know I'm not the strong silent type. If I have something I think is worth saying, I say it. At length. I don't just spell it out, I use it in a sentence, and provide the definition and country of origin.

The dynamics for the little accounts they supposedly want to protect are just so different from the dynamics for a big or even moderately sized account. The ability to know at a glance who is being mobbed and who is stirring robust debate is just.. not there.