Here is an interesting counter-point to the Harpers letter. Some of the signatories are expressing dismay about signing the letter.
Some good points there, and I'm not happy about Rowling signing on so she can blow smoke over her own missteps in the realm of Ignorance Tweeting. This paragraph....
Perhaps more than anything else, it has struck many people as disingenuous to advocate for open discourse by complaining that one's public tweets on a public platform are being publicly disagreed with...
...is mostly right on, except for skipping past the more severe cases of massive dogpiles, where people aren't respectfully disagreed with, but shunned, vilified, and threatened in a manner that seems more Trumpian, more about driving them into the wasteland than giving real and useful criticism. I think that's the phenomenon that brought people like Pinker and Chomsky with their pens.
Also, the article had a sort of omniscient sheen to it that was reflected in its title --
Here's What You Need to Know About That Harper's Letter.... Not "here's what I think is important to know... " The author has already determined what I need to know. That phrasing is an intellectually smothering one IMO. It is exactly what bright folks like Chomsky dislike, and it's way too common in a lot of electronic media.