[agsdfgsd]

>The internet has allowed him and his ilk a bigger voice, platforms to more efficiently spread their ideology and organize.

But again, that's not authoritarianism. Quite the contrary, the left demanding that people like him not be allowed to speak, and in many cases demanding he be attacked or even killed, that is authoritarian.

[KozmoNau7]

We must not tolerate intolerance, because that kills tolerance overall.

When an ideology is built on intolerance, it must be opposed and deplatformed at every turn.

[agsdfgsd]

>We must not tolerate intolerance, because that kills tolerance overall.

I see people repeat that, but I don't see anything to indicate it is true. Quite the contrary, it would appear that one of the main factors in the growing white nationalist population is censorship and other attempts to silence people (calling them some thought terminating cliche like "racist" or "bigot" when they aren't saying anything racist or bigoted). When you say that someone's words are dangerous and they must be silenced, you imply that their views are so overwhelmingly convincing that large numbers of people will be swayed if they hear them. Since you can't actually silence them, all you do is cause them to move somewhere you don't control and then point to your censorship on platforms you do control as evidence that you know they are correct and fear the truth. You end up portraying yourself as the evil authoritarian empire, and the people you are trying to silence as the valiant freedom fighting rebels. People are sympathetic to the rebels, not the empire.

>When an ideology is built on intolerance, it must be opposed and deplatformed at every turn.

But that very ideology is built on intolerance. I presume you are going to delete your account so as to "deplatform" yourself?

[someguydave]

So we must use the power of the state and/or big business to crush thier speech? Do you know how to define fascist?

[KozmoNau7]

Nowhere did I state that.

Rather we must expose the fascists for what they are, drive them back to their hiding holes. We're not forcing anyone, simply showing social media platforms etc. that the presence of hate-spewing and minority-oppressing fascists is not wanted. They react by simple mechanisms of capitalism, by removing them, in order to not lose ad revenue.

The fascists are free to find other platforms, no one is censoring them.

[agsdfgsd]

>that the presence of hate-spewing and minority-oppressing fascists is not wanted.

But the bulk of the people being targeted are none of those things. What the average person is seeing is that anyone who dares to state a fact that far left ideologues don't like gets attacked and called racist. And if twitter doesn't censor them, twitter gets attacked too, and called "a haven for white supremacists and nazis". In reality, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are wanted, it is only a small group of vocal objectors that insist they are unwanted.

>The fascists are free to find other platforms, no one is censoring them.

The former does not support the latter. People moving to an uncensored platform does not mean the censored platform is not censored.