Look, I don't want go victim blame and it is pretty difficult for me to conclude the fault was with the author. He didn't deserve to be treated that way because of his beliefs, cultural heritage, ect. However, this article is meta-example of how not to deal with this. First, it's the internet, so private anonymous people can effortlessly target you and repeatedly avoid bans. Intellectually though, I can't conclude there were real threats. This is why we don't feed trolls or negotiate with terrorists.

Sure twitter could curb free speech (even hate speech) but probably millions of tweets a day prove Godwin's law. You really should not take out a massive article in the times to tell them they won. You shouldn't leave a platform and stand aside for shit like this.

This article hurts twitter, and free speech while telling trolls that they won, in the The New York Times. So I am mad and blaming him for his reaction because now they have more incentive and everyone else is worse off. Some of these trolls are probably Jewish. They care about fucking with people in a low effort way. What the author has done here is garuntee they continue to say annoying shit on the internet. I love the internet, and it is filled with utter garbage, so it would be nice that after I wade through spam wordpress sites I didn't have to read an article praising them(that is how they see it).

Don't feed trolls. Put on the settings that only let certain people tweet at you, ect, and actually stand up for free speech because the press needs it more than ever. Twitter has shadowbanning functionality (or I remember Walt Mossberg mentioning something about that) on air.

The real reason this was shitty, is because there is a teenager, fellow journalist, ect. who is now dealing with these trolls because the root cause didn't go away.