[vimacs2]

The line is incredibly simple actually. Ideas that are diametrically opposed to the freedoms of others should not get to spread off the back of the institutions that are supposed to be protecting those freedoms.

A free society isn't something that can magically sustain itself without active effort and intolerance should not be tolerated. Sure, you can paint this as a "paradox" but aside from fascists cry bullying about being oppressed (while actively salivating about acquiring the ability to oppress everyone) and naïve liberals who can't remotely imagine the idea of bad faith actors in politics, I don't think anybody is getting oppressed here.

As far as I know, there is no violation of the First amendment here so even if you think hate speech should be protected free speech (which I don't agree with), nobody's freedoms have been breached here.

[Jiro]

And who gets to decide that an idea is "diametrically opposed to the freedoms of others"?

Nobody I'm confident in trusting, for sure.

[vimacs2]

How about when the idea itself is directly calling for the opposition of the freedom of others? Fascist and racist ideas are not difficult to parse and there is generally little to no ambiguity in their interpretation. If you're not even capable of understanding the surface level reading of a proposition, then I frankly don't really care about who you trust and neither should society at large.

[bart_spoon]

> Fascist and racist ideas are not difficult to parse and there is generally little to no ambiguity in their interpretation.

Interpretation by who? The things I’ve seen labeled as fascist and racist in recent years have led me to believe this is not true. But then again many of the people doing the labeling not only are quick on the trigger to make accusations of fascism and racism, but also seem to see the world in very black and white terms and seem to have little interest in things like nuance or context. I suppose all ideas become easy to parse with no ambiguity in interpretation when you have zero interest in introspection or countenancing views that differ from your own.

[vimacs2]

You do realize that we are specifically discussing ideas that are so reprehensible as to warrant being kicked off platforms, right?

Also, I'd love to see examples of the things you're talking about that are simultaneously filled with nuance and context, but also elicited an internet death penalty.