But...if i'm parsing you correctly, in that you're saying that it's not actual Nazis being blocked, then does not my point still stand?
You're forcing people to host content on their private property they find reprehensible, now we can make the argument here that politics is more abut in attribute, that certainly can be argued in general, however that doesn't follow for this case as we're talking about expressing those views, which is a different matter entirely, a Christian Church has every right to deny Muslims from using it as a place of worship and vis visa.
The issue is mostly a matter of practicalities of scale. Twitter and Facebook
are the public discourse, for many practical purposes. Each of the big social media platforms is an effective monopoly, because each has different usage patterns that they are the
only major player within. Twitter and Facebook don't compete for users, because they function fundamentally differently. Facebook is heavily focused on community functionality, while Twitter is about the immediacy of response, and people use them in different ways accordingly, causing different public figures to become prominent on them.
Social media, fundamentally, is a perfect fit for monopolistic practices. Userbase is content. The value of these places is in how many already use them, independently of virtually all other factors, and this is why antitrust is uniquely well-suited as a regulation framework. Because it
is not possible to break Facebook up into separate platforms of its kind, same for Twitter. If these companies are abusing their private regulatory power to control what the public may discuss, then they have to be restricted from restricting their users.
You, as an individual owner of a forum with only a few thousand users, have extremely limited impact on public discourse. Twitter and Facebook can, and have, enabled
and destroyed social movements on other
continents from where they are beholden to rule of law. The Arab Spring, for example. This is why they're being gone after with antitrust, as functional monopolies, rather than the proposed regulation being a general matter of forbidding platform owners the ability to self-regulate. It's very much "Facebook, Google and Twitter have abused their market positions to deny public discourse of numerous topics, therefor
these companies need forbidden the ability to self-regulate."
Define 'progressive' here.
The difference from liberalism is
primarily in that progressivism proposes "making up for" the bigotry of the past through active benefits, as seen with affermative action, and considers emotional harm to be of similar importance to physical harm, as seen with hate speech. Meanwhile, liberalism
generally draws the line at deliberate, persistent emotional abuse of individuals, the stuff covered under current harassment laws, and seeks to rectify things by tackling the damage itself (well, when they aren't being "the free market will fix all!", which is more libertarian stuff), rather than counteracting it on a demographic basis.
Basically, it's a Liberty vs. Authority matter. Progressives tend towards authoritarian due to hate speech
bans, affirmative action policies and other bureaucratic brute-force solutions to the matters of bigotry and unequal outcome, separating them from Liberals who, in terms of legislation, generally stop at preventing systemic materially detrimental bias and fixing
overall issues independently of demographic after that.
We're missing the point entirely,
What I'm saying is why Nazism? I'm sure you could find plenty of cases in which NAMBLA was bared from speaking and you don't see massive outcry about that, so why Nazis?
Why them of all groups? Why psychologically? And the document you brought forward...I find it hard to believe that had the influence you think seeing McCarthyism was almost directly after that date.
Nazi happens to be the buzzword for the people who are currently tackled by private mechanisms of censorship, as well as the
supposed target, though it generally extends to opposition to Progressivism in general, as seen with the ban on any sort of criticism of the "mainstream" advocacy of transgender rights. As in "Twitter has banned people for stating scientific facts" levels of upholding the political movement. Also, you were asking about the origin of defending the free speech of Nazis, and an early UN declaration of Human Rights as covering political ideology in the immediate aftermath seems a clear starting point to the attitude. Just because it wasn't
popularly upheld, doesn't mean the idea didn't start there and continue into today.
I fully expect this to fizzle out but it would be truly hilarious if youtube moved to stomp on ALL segregation and discrimination hate speech and not just the convenient ones.
The mixed screetches of outraeg from Neonazis, Alt righters, Alt lefters, TERFs and all manner of hate peddlers that think their hate being fashionable makes it ok would be glorious.
I want to see the very guy who started this mess de-ranked into oblivon for the open advocacy of (admittedly minor to the point of petty humor) violence. Watch his views abruptly halve on him as YouTube decides "Fuck the media, they've done jack shit for us but insults for the last five years". And a huge chunk of the Social Justice YouTubers going up in smoke for their own calls for forceful solutions.