Since no one answered your question about how much due process is needed, let me take a stab at it. To paraphrase the article, due process requires that the rules be known in advance, and that they be applied non-arbitrarily to each accused violator. I would also add that the rules should be as specific as possible, since vague terms like "hateful ideology" can be applied to almost anything controversial.

So for example, if an organization was going to censor certain political websites, they should specify precisely what is not allowed: Advocating socialism? The killing of non-combatants? etc.

If the rules are only going to be applied at the whims of the Twitter mob, then that should be posted in advance: "You will be in violation if you advocate for race-based killing AND there are at least 10,000 tweets in a single day condemning you."

> I would also add that the rules should be as specific as possible, since vague terms like "hateful ideology" can be applied to almost anything controversial.

I didn't say "Yup, hateful ideology", I said "Yup, Nazis."

They run around with torches and swastikas and celebrate murder. What's controversial about that, and what does Twitter have to do with anything? I don't use Twitter. It's very telling how people constantly drag in shit like that to bloat and pad. Face Hannah Arendt, face Sebastian Haffner, face Erich Fromm; but your ignorance and shallowness will not keep me from shaking you and any other comers off.

Pretty much or at least an organisation that adheres to all or the preponderance of the tenets of the ideology.

While I might suspect the Stormfronters would like to do that I don't know that they would, authoritarian fascists, sure, Nazi's not really.

Maybe it's because I like history and I've read a lot about WWII and the factors that led up to it but I'm careful with the world Nazi.

Been a race supremacist doesn't mean Nazi because logically a Black Panther would also be a Nazi then.

Been hard-right doesn't make you a Nazi because then the Republican party would be Nazi's.

Been pro-eugenics doesn't make you a Nazi because then the government of the UK, US and USSR where Nazi (in the early 20th century).

Been pro-nationalism doesn't make you a Nazi because then well half the governments on the planet would be Nazi's.

Been a race supremacist, hard right and pro-eugenics and nationalist just might.

So, essentially there's no definition outside of "participated in the German SS during World War 2" that you will accept? Even if the people called themselves "neo-Nazis" and talked about "the JQ" openly?

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/896860224971128836

The Daily Stormer self-identifies as neo-Nazi.

If they think they're following in Nazi footsteps, does that count for anything in your book?

If not, then what would?

Tell me what "the ideology" is then.

Did you even finish reading his post?

    >[Being] a race supremacist, hard right and pro-eugenics and nationalist just might.

Can you please change your formatting on this? It's breaking HN for me (Chrome on Win10)

Nothing about being German in there? Nothing about hating Jews? Or any of the other things that the Nazis espoused just because they were handy, and which had nothing to do with "the ideology" because there isn't one?

This is people talking to me about grammar who don't even know what a letter is. Read "Origins of Totalitarianism". Read Sebastian Haffner. Everybody is so interested in the subject, so knowledgeable about it, and so against Nazis.

The proof is in the pudding. You cannot disprove my with your straw men and having no clue about the nature of Nazism and related diseases, you can strike yourself from my phone book is all.