I think the point is that these risks are unevenly distributed. When I announce my thoughts on Twitter my risk is lower by virtue of the fact that I'm a dude, I'm straight, or any number of other qualifiers. It's not that no one experiences any risks when announcing themselves in public, it's that the risk is dramatically and severely unevenly distributed.
The unequal distribution of risk (and consequently, the unequal distribution of vitriol) is IMO the entire point of the article, and has two main takeaways:
- This results in some demographics experiencing relatively little abuse, and therefore assume a proportionally larger share of the conversation as those who experience high abuse quit.
- The system, by virtue of the fact that it's built mostly by people who experience low-risk when using it, is in a large way blind to high-risk members of its population, and will not develop the necessary tools to combat abuse (see also: Reddit).
> "If you want a limited, curated audience, go somewhere else."
This is very, very evidently happening. Twitter's user growth has stalled, its total user base has plateaued, despite competing social networks continuing to grow rapidly. There are, of course, more than enough anecdotes of both high- and low-profile users fleeing the platform due to abuse, and the aggregate numbers reflect this.
It's also worth noting that the younger generation has overwhelmingly chosen social networks with either more limited audiences, or more abuse management tools (see: Snapchat, Instagram).
The market is speaking, though it makes me wonder if some middle ground was possible - a "public announcement" social network where the most extreme ends of the abuse spectrum could be contained. Twitter fulfills a valuable niche, and there is a certain amount of sadness that it's really not working out.