The impracticable solution we’re currently living is the recommendation in your first sentence. Who tells people to “stop using” social media because they are triggered? Those people? Social media companies? The government? You?

If you read the article, you would see I proposed exceptions where justified. For example, copywritable works of art. A journalist in a war torn country may make sense as well. But those should be the exceptions.

Apart from that point, how is any other part of the article divorced from reality? Interested in your actual thoughts as opposed to conclusory statements about naïveté and questions about me, my education/experience, and worldliness. One thing you’re taught in law school is to meet an argument on its merits and avoid ad hominems.