Can I try to breathe some sense into both sides?
On one side, the opinion is that Neil tried to defend Laura Bailey and was very specific as to what kind of hate he was denouncing. Neil lifts up Laura by saying she is brave. This side promotes this kind of behaviour because it shames bad attitudes and exposes them, so they will stop. Some users believe this is the right approach because users in the future will be discouraged from posting in such a way in fear of being exposed.
The other side defends that Neil is using the wrong platform to do this, because it gives light to bad behaviours and allows such bad tweets to become a thing, which is akin to news about mass shootings which could fuel the next potential. He should be reporting these tweets to authorities, because death threats are serious. His motives of shaming are also questionable because he did so at other times when it was less laudable (like with Jason Schreier), and so his intentions of defending Laura, while praiseworthy, are tainted by his need to defend the game his name is attached to. Some mention that while the hate condemned in Neil's post is clear, it may be seen as a blank statement to vilify any kind of criticism or negativity about the game (this has already been done by him, and by many people on many platforms), and a way of portraying all those who are against the game as psychotic haters.
The takeaways are simple:
1) Laura Bailey didn't deserve this, she was doing her job.
2) Neil trying to defend her is noble, but defending her is arguably biased, and it would be wiser if he used another means to do so. (such as reporting)
3) Neil spiralled somewhat out of control on Twitter, being negative about other people, users and journalists alike.
4) We all need to be more civil and respectful towards each other, and to share an atmosphere of harmony.
5) Let's not lump all criticism of the game into one category of people (see "TLOU2 Haters Are Nut Jobs CONFIRMED" thread for more wisdom).