To confirm, your argument is that refusing to allow someone to advocate for genocide on your blog platform is fundamentally similar to killing a man for refusing to pay protection money?
This is a standard tactic of those in the deplatforming business - to claim that everything they are deplatforming is the same thing as advocating for genocide. It's a terrible argument, and the moral equivalent of asking somebody if they've stopped beating their wife.
If you can't make a good argument for deplatforming a specific person based on the specific things they've actually said, then maybe, just maybe, you're the bad guy.
In this case, I am speaking about the general act of deplatforming vs mafia hits. A great deal of people HAVE been banned from platforms for explicitly advocating genocide; that’s an actual thing that happens fairly regularly.
Many are deplatformed for other things, of course, and I would never say that everyone who is banned from a platform is banned for good reasons. But there are a lot of assholes out there in need of banning, imo.
I'm thinking of when they tried to deplatform the trans activist youtuber Contrapoints over one trans person who guest starred on her show one time turning out to have a view of certain gender things those people didn't like. The host probably wasn't even aware and it's gotten absurd how this can happen with such a degree of separation - dare to even interact with somebody guilty of wrongthink and now you and everyone you've associated with is also guilty and eaten alive. Very absolutist and reminds me of brainless zero tolerance policies in public education.
Except Contrapoints hasn't been deplatformed, so using her as an example of the extremist and arbitrary power of the "mafia morality" behind deplatforming to punish "wrongthink" doesn't work.
Sure, there was an attempt... but the fact that it wasn't immediately successful at erasing her and making her persona non grata with no effective means of interacting with society due to the absolute and arbitrary control that leftists have over the web, and by extension over free expression itself, contradicts the common fear-narratives around deplatforming.
I mean "dare to even interact with somebody guilty of wrongthink and now you and everyone you've associated with is also guilty and eaten alive" can't be true if it didn't happen. We can't be living in a fascist Orwellian dystopia where the SJW mafia and the pitchfork-wielding thought police control all that we see and hear if they can't actually deplatform someone as controversial as Contrapoints at will.
I wonder how many people forgot or never knew at all about the ultra liberal “activist” that shot up a YouTube office because they deplatformed/demonitized her/him.
You would THINK a shooting at a YouTube office would have been a big deal - but nope - memory holed.
If you can't make a good argument for deplatforming a specific person based on the specific things they've actually said, then maybe, just maybe, you're the bad guy.