Some content fosters the development of extremists/terrorists.
This type of content does not use the platform in good faith. It's only objective is to trap listeners in a spiral of extremist content, basically brainwashing them. In some cases this even leads to violent acts. E.g. there have been multiple terrorist acts where it was determined that this extremist content played a crucial role in the enabling of the perpetrators.
We typically do not allow direct incentives of violence or concrete threats. I don't think we should should we allow content where we know that it indirectly leads to more violence.
Without free speech, there would be no LGBT Pride in the first place. They were seen as extremists.
Having free speech but only for people who say mainstream things is equivalent to saying "I like the world as it exists today". That is conservatism by definition.
Without discrimination there wouldn't need to be LGBT Pride to begin with.
White-nationalism was tried and didn't work to say the least. Content creators, like the ones banned, advocate for a world of 50-200 years ago. They are conservatives. Limiting their reach is anything BUT conservatism by definition.
Also, there are plenty of conservatives content creators who user lies and deception to spread their dated believes. The ban only targeted the worst of the worst, the ones that actually advocate for (white)ethnostates.
White nationalists are the canary in the coal mine. Sure, nobody cares about the canary itself. But everyone should care why the canary died, because it has implications for us all.
What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about.
Well if the canary develops into a monkey who convinces the most single minded people to do stupid stuff you might as well get rid of them and get a new canary - which is basically what happened here.
> What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about.
White nationalists kill and social media websites share some part of the blame. To say that the more pressing issue is that they police which ideas are acceptable is laughable when you consider the great extend they allow for extreme views. There are literally still holocaust denies still allowed on their platforms.
Explain further how free speech is a dated concept we don't need anymore.