I don't object to removing it as unsourced POV. I do object to all the other unsourced POV in the article. For example:
Disemvoweling has since turned out to be a surprisingly effective tool for maintaining order in online venues. For some reason, the fact that their text is still present, even in severely altered form, seems to baffle trolls' normal impulses.
How do we know this? I think the article should be heavily trimmed. There's too much editorializing. The fact that the article was written by the putative inventor of the technique may be a factor. -