The way I see it, the Internet is like the Id: a surging froth of ideas and emotions, most of which are too extreme, too violent, or too stupid to survive for any length of time. They bubble up, get ridiculed mercilessly by the Ten Thousand Voices of the Internet, pop, and subside again into the froth.
The Internet is a place for people to try out extreme behaviors--things they wouldn't try in person, arguments they'd never use in real life, where their speech or writing would be a permanent record and reference to their ideas. Copy-editing isn't what makes depublishing so valuable. It's the ability to float some truly disgusting trial balloon of an idea, and then take it away again before anyone can hold you accountable for it.
If you're going to the Internet for your meaningful debate, you're going to be frustrated at every turn. Especially if you're looking to find someone saying something evil, and to hold them accountable for it. The Internet isn't the place for that. Sure, you get to argue with someone else's Id, but the Id isn't where the good arguments are developed, presented, and adopted.
The Internet may give you some insight into how other people think and feel, but of facilities like anonymity and depublishing, the Internet is not a place where you get to hold people accountable for their thoughts and feelings. That's what real-life interactions are for. If you (or Kurtz) are unhappy with depublishing, turn off the computer, push away from the desk, go outside, and find a real live human being to talk to. Maybe you can discuss the weather, or something.
