There are literally nazis promoting themselves on twitter without censorship, so I disagree with your claim.
There's all kinds of genocide being promoted on Twitter, and the so-called Nazis are literally the only ones being censored. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander says I. Either Twitter - a for profit entity - is a common carrier or they impose editorial standards, they can't be allowed to get away with playing both sides as it suits them. And by "suits them" I mean, sells the most ads.
The group of people that get accused of being Nazis can span all the way up into the hundreds of millions (Ex: Many people call Trump a fascist, and therefore his X million supports would be fascist under these accusations)
The brush that people are painting about who is a Nazi is very broad, these days.
Do you have a source for that?
Luckily self-identification isn't the most reliable way to categorize things. A robin doesn't have to say "I am a robin" in order for you to say "Oh, look, a robin." It's not like suddenly thousands of years of development of classification systems doesn't exist anymore. The group of people who, whether they proclaim it or not, express white-supremacist, nationalist, and vitriolic views is unfortunately not that very small.
Bottomline is that you do not get to judge who is what based on some self-made criteria, just like the legal system enforces a presumption of innocence even in a case of "he was standing over the dead body with bloody hands".
Do you have a source for that?
I can't help but wonder why you immediately jump to what they look like rather than by what they say and do in publicly viewable spaces. How much might we wager that, if you actually have a source to show for your fact, what you're talking about has less than 1/10000th the occurrence rate of what the rest of us are talking about?
Remember that Twitter was OK with ISIS using it, right up until it started to affect ad revenues, then they made only a half hearted attempt to stop them. Their actual ideology is only, make money.
* Current news! They just caught him on the run in Spain a few days ago.
So you'll excuse me if I don't take every accusation of nazism 100% seriously.
In that regard there is no global consensus. And arguments for and against can be quite compelling.
We know that attempting to suppress ideas can have unintended consequences.
Of course who should have the power to identify hate speech and censor content and what the definition of hate speech is, that's debatable. However a platform like Twitter is also private property, another right protected by the constitution and people don't necessarily have free speech rights on somebody else's property.
As for the compelling arguments about letting Nazis speak in order to identify them:
1. read some German newspapers just before 1933 – the same arguments against censorship have been used then as well, nothing new
2. if you want to see actual antisemitism, some literal Nazis, go to https://gab.ai — nothing on Twitter is as bad as what goes on in there and the moderates that are against censoring such opinions usually don't realize how bad they can get or their reach
Again, I'm very much pro free speech. But free speech is not my religion and it needs to be balanced against the other rights that we have as well, like property rights, or the right to feel safe and to be treated fairly and respectfully.
For good reading on the subject, try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
It was emotionally difficult for me to get past that first sentence. I otherwise agree the US Constitution, in theory is, potential, exceptionally powerful.
The moment you start restricting it you don't have any. I'm from France and there is no freedom of speech here.
If you think laws made to fight against "hate speech" will stay in their current form you forget about what happened with special anti-terrorist laws. They always get applied to more and more things. What is accepted speech today can be hate speech tomorrow. Remember: the power we let good government get will also be available to shitty government later.
I see this all the time on HN, mostly Europeans. This is false. US freedom of speech is universal, including Nazi or hate. There is no such clause that prohibits hate speech. That's Europe's thing.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
If so to whom and how to you identify those people?
Nazism is based on belief that some ethnicities are to be blamed for all evil in the world (defamation), and proposes to deal with that by one ethnicity exterminating or enslaving the others (instigation of violence).
Does it really surprise you it's forbidden in many countries, and many websites doesn't want to have it promoted on their property?
And additionally - twitter is a private website. It's not censorship, when a newspaper chooses who can write articles for them. Make your own newspaper if you disagree.
For good reason! But I don't get why you criticize the fact that there are
> nazis promoting themselves on twitter
What I'm trying to say here is that you should criticize if they do something bad (violence, threat of violence, ...) but not when they promote themselves (which is totally legal).