What has happened down here is the winds have changed

I'm intrigued. I haven't read the whole article, but if I did and say something like you did I would explain myself.

If it's very misleading, even wrong why don't you expose your reasons?

Apparently (I gleaned from the comments) Susan was very vocally opposed to that project and said it was an attack.

She's painting a bleak picture of widespread social attacks and commentary causing the problems in academics that I don't think matches reality, and she's also suggesting the public shouldn't comment on publicly funded research.

I don't know of a single academic that has left the field due to negative commentary coming from outside the peer review system, and I know a lot of people that have left academics and a lot of people still in academics.

Some ambitious academic peers are vicious, and people are leaving due to infighting, trouble getting funding, academic stealing, difficulty getting tenure, and general departmental and university politics. The single biggest threat to education is our funding model and the exploding costs stemming from exploding amounts of administration.

The paper review process not only isn't one of the major problems, I personally believe it's actually working better now than it ever has, and that the quality and standards are higher than they've ever been.

The comments on Statcheck were wildly in favor of having automated bots fact-checking publications. I contend that it's best use is before publication, and not after, but otherwise I agree - it's awesome.

Please read the article through before you make a TL; DR. It's well worth the read in any case.

There's an essentially infinite amount of information out there on the internet, and people have a finite amount of free time; thus, many of us try to glean the thesis of an article before committing an hour to reading it -- particularly slow readers and non-native English speakers.

Especially in articles like this one, with a vague headline, no pull quotes, section titles that are too symbolic to actually describe the sections they head, and a break from the convention of using the opening paragraphs to provide a summary of what's to come, a TLDR comment is greatly appreciated to give a potential reader at least some clue what it's about.

TLDR: You oppose TLDR comments because you feel they keep people from reading the full article, but in cases like this, the lack of one is doing so.

Remember that whole cultural appropriation thing last year? Or the safe space movements on campus? There are plenty of movements that abuse political correctness to bully anyone around. On the opposite side there are plenty of 4chan types who love to shamelessly bully anyone who dare come out with a feministic message.

I imagine academics in related fields are ripe for being targeted by Internet bullies and trolls.

Isn't it this kind of abuse that Fiske is referring to?