I've found that a net good thing at least for myself. I used to be the dude who would blurt out whatever popped into my head and not care too much how it would be received by my audience, and sometimes even relish the fact that it was badly received.

By self-censoring and thinking through what I'm about to say and thinking about my audience before I open my mouth I find not only are social interactions easier and more pleasant, but I actually get my points across more consistently and clearly. People are then also more open to listening and don't always automatically get defensive. So ironically applying self-censorship has made it easier to make the points I actually want to make.

It's not the 99 times when your parachute opens that you stress about. It's the other 1%.

(Mis)interpretation reduces to choice, as does the principle of charity. With a large enough audience fallout is a statistical certainty.

Arguably the (male) head of the Free Software movement has no place debating the definition of "sexual assault" or "statutory rape" in a conversation about a human trafficker and child abuser. His opinions there have zero value (not to mention that a debate over such definitions is missing the point entirely), and engaging in that conversation -- even to come to the defense of his tangentially-related dead friend -- was a very poor choice, even for someone known to be contentious and often misunderstood.

And they could self-organize into self-selected groups. Then each type could best thrive in their own self-constructed communities.

And they could practice other-tolerance for the other sort of folks. Because tolerance.

Not only getting one's point across better, but actually getting a better point across.

On the whole, definitely a net positive.

You call your solution self-censorship, but I just kinda think it's general common sense: why do you feel the need to broadcast your views to a large, unknown audience on controversial subjects where misunderstandings cause a lot of trouble for you? There are plenty of other real-world places to discuss things that don't carry that risk, and likely some more-private places on the internet where you can join an actual community of people who will get to know you over time and understand what you say in context.

Put another way: most people wouldn't randomly walk up to a group of 10 strangers on the street and immediately bring up a controversial topic. Why do we think that's a good move on the internet?

I think we're starting to see the social limits of instant around-the-world communication. It just doesn't work as well as we want it to. The internet is still ridiculously new to the world, and our understanding of its social nuances is still in its infancy.

I do that a lot.

You could trivially interpret that as "exercising judgment", but it's not that. I am exercising caution and self-preservation.

It's akin to the onset of apathy.

However, that would categorize Stallman's gaffe here as bad judgment and not self-censorship. Seeing as what he said was definitely not appropriate to say in those circumstances.

Many angry down-voters bashing that [-] button only making my point.