I do think there are things that many people self-sensor, e.g. opinions that fall outside or on the edges of the orthodoxy of some bubble and is just going to trigger emotional arguments/stereotyping/downvotes/etc.
Should someone feel they have to self-censor just to avoid this?
I'm a little surprised to hear that people don't do this in person as well as online. There are numerous topics I avoid bringing up because I know nothing productive will result from the conversation. It is rarely about politics or religion, just topics whose novelty offer a low probability of productive insights and will probably require a sufficient time investment.
Choose your battles/topics of conversation, you only have so many hours in your life.
There are some topics guaranteed to attract 500+ comments that are mostly nothing but rants about big companies, Musk, the US, etc. Better to just avoid.
Sincere, productive conversations are mostly going to take place in more private forums like group chat or face to face. Public discussion threads are better suited for identifying friends and enemies, playing and joking around, and signaling status.
Most experts are idiots (specifically “intellectual yet idiot“). Protecting bad ideas (expert or not) against criticism is an immense danger to society.
If your ideas and findings can’t stand on their own, I can’t help but think they must not be very strong.
Oh and if you think that what you post on the internet is you, and it’s you personally that’s being attacked when people respond to your words…
Please ask yourself if that’s true.
Ideas have no such legal protection, for good reason. If they are stupid or poorly presented, they can be dunked on for cool points. This is one kind of activity people enjoy doing and spectating on public forums, and it's a net positive to society.
> I want experts to be able to talk about their work without feeling abused, harassed, or threatened
> Should someone feel they have to self-censor just to avoid this?
You keep mentioning feelings. This is what I'm responding to. I get the impression that you want the law to step in and silence other people when you feel bad. In public, such an arrangement is stupid. Conversely, it can be beneficial in private spaces where participants consent to community guidelines, formal or informal, at the outset.
If we agree that policing public speech based solely on what people feel is a bad policy, then this whole conversation has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And if we disagree, all I can leave you with is this: what if whatever harmless, perfectly legal thing you say makes somebody else feel bad? Should you be silenced?