The mediums which have the most reach have the most reach explicitly because they have less spam porn hate and crazy. If twitter gets more "democratic" more crazy, more hateful, less desirable and less popular shall we suggest the next big platform welcome an equal number of undesirables?

It's a strange hyperbole isn't it. Same as when people are accused of being "hateful" and "spreading hate" just for voicing a dissenting opinion on some controversial topics, without any hate involved at all.

There are literal fascists within the alt-right, and the conservatives as a whole have failed to distance themselves sufficiently from them.

“If there's a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis.”

Nick Fuentes is a fascist. He has complimented Hitler and Putin - even saying the media comparing Putin to Hitler “as if that wasn't a good thing.” He holds a variety of other repugnant views which are tightly associated with fascism and Nazis.

When Ye and Nick Fuentes (an actual fascist) have dinner with a leader of a party, and that party didn’t immediately abandon that leader, they all qualify under the 11 Nazi’s category. See also: no abandonment or even major pushback against the leader saying “very fine people” were chanting “blood and soil” at Charlottesville etc.

[edit] also in the context of social media moderation, most people moderated hold extreme views, so when talking about conservatives who have been moderated, they are more likely to be fascist. Same as how of moderated left users, they are more likely to be Stalinist’s or other extreme groups when compared to the left population as a whole.

The difference is, sometimes when conservatives have complained about moderation, the examples given were of prominent alt-right fascist adjacent figures being banned. Christian Nationalists and White Nationalists are fundamentally fascists, but some of them are defended in cultural wars by a good chunk of conservative voices. E.g. Alex Jones received conservative op-Ed’s in his support when he lost a lawsuit.

> a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Lets take Trump, since you asked for a specific example. Certainly this criteria applies to Trumpists be definition, libs of TT, etc:

[x] America first (nationalism)

[x] Attempts to discredit elections and strong arm state officials (centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader)

[x] Build the wall (severe economic and social regimentation, racist)

[x] Muslim ban (severe economic and social regimentation, racist)

[x] Undermining the free press (forcible suppression of opposition)

[x] January 6th (forcible suppression of opposition)

[x] Telling the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by...Somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left" (forcible suppression of opposition, racist)