I have so far not seen anyone try to answer the question regarding "qui bono" in the column.  Maybe it is so obvious it needs no answer but let me try:  Typically the beneficiary is whoever is setting themselves up as the gate-keeper for what is acceptable.   They will try to extract a "rent" from both sides for volunteering to act as a cultural moderator.   That rent may be initially paid in reputation but will eventually it will be financial because they will have created a new cultural sub-industry for themselves: all access to certain cultural themes will require their approval.  It may even initially be beneficial if neither side is talking to the other, but it is certainly in the interests of the moderator to keep them apart and requiring "moderation".  Cynical you think?  Yes it is, and sadly I think true.  Let's sit back, get out the popcorn (or is that some other culture's sacred foodstuff?) and watch what happens.