"Then we wind up with a 50/50 "balancing" of two points of view even though one has no basis in reality." I'd be very cautious about making statements like this. It is too tempting to brush aside the ideas of others when they don't coincide with our own, but it is learning to seriously explore others' realities that will enable our species to coexist peacefully in the future. WHY do people make the claims they do? Self-aggrandizement or sincerity? Can you turn that focus onto yourself? In seriously grappling with viewpoints different from my own, I came to realize that the large majority of people are as genuine and sincere as myself. I submit that most people come to their viewpoints in ways that appear largely rational to them, in much the same way that I like to think I come to my conclusions. Could you say that the research you have conducted, examined, or passed along is sufficiently exhaustive to preclude the reasonable possibility of error or misunderstanding, thus obviating the need for further debate? I think that such a position would require more omniscience than pure science normally grants.

"The only way to manage this is true transparency and no anonymity," Schmidt said. "In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you." It seems to me that the only people who would be qualified to "manage this" are people who are rational, careful, and understanding one hundred percent of the time. The history of the human race does not give one much confidence, does it?