Nah, banning does work. People who are banned are forced to rely on word of mouth and lose out on algorithmic amplification.
The “banning works” takes such a narrow view of time it’s remarkable. There was a world before YouTube, before internet, and before television.
Horrible ideas spread when they are unchallenged, not when they are driven underground.
When an idea is transparently horrible, it's proponents are not interested in discussion except as a means to propogate their message to others. In a reasoned debate, fascists always have to work the least because it always takes more mental effort to debunk a terrible idea than stating said idea.
Meanwhile, adhering to the rules of respectability means the fascist gets to expose far more people to their message in a format where they get to express their message without interruption.
The only reason why you should ever talk to a fascist is to ridicule them. Jean Paul-Satre put it best when talking about anti-Semites (though it really applies to all strains of fascism):
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
Also, nobody is being silenced here either because there is no obligation built into the first amendment or even the very concept of Free speech to provide a platform for anybody.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_effect_(psychology)
this became clear as the right became more and more extreme as people had their views censored.
this stupidity only mixes the normals with the crazies forcibly.
people who like tate could soon end up moving to the same kinds of alternative sites that crazies jones now reside on.
this is a dangerous road that ends with the people who feel beaten down eventually popularizing crazy ideas.
its the irony of censorship that too much of it typically causes many of the problems it wanted to avoid.
I don't want to see the outcome of the many impressionable teens who followed tate get exposed to harmful radical ideologies because they followed him to a less savory and crazier site!