Where's the reasoning

Over at HaEmtza Reb Harry has a long exposition building quite a case against viewing pornography (he uses a crude colloquial abbreviation of that word). No where in his essay does he indicate that he disagrees with that strong case, in fact he comes across as strongly supporting it. Okay. And then he takes a sharp left turn, with the following:

"Does that mean we should stop using the internet? Of course not. It is way too valuable..."

Of course not?? Why of course not? I certainly understand the instinct of not wanting to stop using the Internet. It is too valuable, etc.  but, based on the strong arguments he himself just made how does he know that it's an "of course"? Especially when there is an overwhelming number of rabbonim and Jewish communal leaders who in fact say "of course" to not using it!

Where is the judgment, where is the שיקול הדעת? Where is the intelligent discussion? Where is the Talmudic training? Why, without a reasoned cost / benefit analysis is it so obvious, and why does this not seem to bother the readership?

Could it be this is nothing but dogma of the centrist variety? My fantastical theory goes like this -  according to RHM's view of the world, Thou shall be a centrist comes along with its own Big 3 averos, one of which apparently is that thou shalt not block exposure to the secular world. At any cost. That being an incontrovertible tenet, leaves no choice but to say "of course". Can this sort of narrow (non?) thinking dogma actually be what centrism is about?

Reader Contest: what are RHM's other big 2 big centrist averos?