France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

For example, Chinese services are still available beyond the firewall, just not catered to the average non-Chinese.

To the consumer, most don't care, for most purposes; c.f. TikTok's popularity.

In your examples, which are clearly mere slurs, you do not try to sound objective in your bad depictions of them.

In my experience of what can be seen in the news, your risk something more if you are telling, for example, "white people just damage all the books they touch in bookstores, because they never care how they handle them".

If you read it carefully, I just “made fun of” people who are unimaginative. Is that an innate trait? Should my content be censored?

Should a comment on a video of a tall person that says “how’s the weather up there?” be censored using criminal liability?

This criminalizes even hosting the discussion about what beliefs along these lines are or are not correct. Someone posts about their (mistaken) beliefs, in essence asking about a disproven theory correlating race and IQ. Other people correct them, educating them as well as any other lurkers. Should the sysadmins go to jail for not deleting the entire thread?

Being wrong on the internet should not be illegal.

There is absolutely not a bright line, and it is somewhat naive or perhaps even dishonest to claim otherwise.

So what is hate speech in a way that can be automated?

Will that automated approach squelch valuable speech too? What if a certain disease impacts an ethnicity more than others? Is ‘black people tend to Sickle Cell more often than white people’ hate speech? Could a moderator decide that, given the fines? Could automation?

This is where a very loud problem is and this is the complexity you’re claiming is ‘simple’.

The 1st Amendment cuts both ways there - you can't be punished for removing something from your billboard. That's your freedom as a US entity to decide what you express. The reasoning behind why you removed content (a violation of your website's terms, a request from a foreign government, contractual obligation with McDonalds to not host Pink Slime videos in exchange for $1MM a year) doesn't matter from a constitutional perspective. So the US government revoking a protection of an existing US law as punishment for an expression (removing content) would be an unconstitutional violation of free expression.

Now I'm not pretending that this is a new problem. It existed in the days of BBSes. It existed in the days of print. The list could go on. This should be been seen as forewarning. Doubtlessly, newspapers always received letters to the editor containing hate speech. Very few of them would be published, borderline cases may be published with additional commentary. It would take a very special publication to publish hate speech because it would affect their reputation. Yet they moved to the online world and opened the floodgates with "comments" that received little if any review before publication. There is a strong incentive for people to misuse this privilege against the best interests of the publisher since they immediately gain wide exposure. That is for a service that has a strong incentive to pay heed to what they publish, even in the digital world.

This short term mentality, coupled with the immediacy and global scope of the internet, resulted in certain parties using the Internet as a propaganda machine for speech that is detrimental to society and even the services that permit it. It is difficult to reign in short of shuttering the outlets for publication or giving them strong incentives to invest the resources into combating it.

Because, this is only the continuing of this logic...

Trying to block intolerance by force is wrong.

Teach how to overcome it, or just teach to keep it to one's self.

You haven't provided a meaningful answer to your question. For example, praising someone's eyes would be intolerant. Providing a factual description would be intolerance.

Which freedoms would that be?

or from https://www.britannica.com/topic/hate-speech "speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group identified by attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability, and others."

the definitions vary widely. Let's say we nail down a definition. Perhaps closer to Britannica. Then the issue is interpretation.

"speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group": Even alluding to a matter would deem it poor. I support basketball, as it was a sport I grew up with, and is a part of my identity. If someone says "basketball is a stupid game,", well then that's technically hate speech.

You can't have a free society with restricted speech.

Does the law in the US actually regulate that? I was under the assumption that the nudity prohibition on TV and such was simply a voluntary measure. Facebook is welcome to allow it at any moment, they just choose not to, in order to prevent it from becoming a porn repository. I could be totally wrong on this one, but it makes sense, and it explains why it is still totally allowed elsewhere.

Similar to how videogame ratings in the US issued by ESRB are not legally binding and are just a voluntary system that stores use, to decide which games to carry (e.g., most stores won't be carrying Adults Only rated games) and who to sell them to.