While I think Caswell makes some great points throughout the article, I can not help but wonder how it would be received by the humanity scholars discussed. The tone reads as somewhat condescending and aggressive, and when it does not, it sways in a way that feels detrimental to those same points. Whether Caswell is right or wrong to hold the opinions mentioned, I think readers are likely to reject what might come off as self-righteousness. If two parties are to accept and promote one another, it seems best to strive to strengthen relations. For example, where Caswell uses the word 'begin' here to describe and act that a generalized group of people should take on, it is implied that no one has ever done so. I can not help but feel like someone has, and if someone is trying their best, why take a jab at that person. I read another comment on the article by someone who read Caswell's Urgent Archives for 701. I remember listening to a presentation about Urgent Archives where the students who had read the book all mentioned finding Caswell's tone and sometimes message off-putting. Is being on the offensive really the way the way to bridge gaps, spark community action, and make change? I am doubtful that Caswell is really the voice archivists need advocating for them, having read this article and heard the opinions of other readers.

And to what extent is this beneficial to society? I can think of many online communities that encourage harm and the spread of false information. This past year I was disturbed to see a fully scanned and publicized journal from someone who had murdered children. People congregate around ideas that are damaging to others, especially online where they can dehumanize their victims and even like-minded users by escaping the context provided by real-life encounters. When I saw said journal I was confronted with the fact that people are essentially archiving these troubling movements. People are also able to spread racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry online, some of it being archived by individuals and some of it by programming. I am not promoting censorship, but dangerous ideas are spreading online, being stored, and accessed freely. How can archivists combat this sort of activity, while promoting their own ideals?