But I want to know exactly what and how the people who "hate" me think. The idea that censorship solves the problem is pretty flawed; I assume Trump got elected in part by people who felt they couldn't speak their own thoughts out loud anymore. Just like with the Google memo, you create silent resentment instead of keeping a debate open (in as far as some of these people are capable of debate – that's another discussion). You can stick a Nazi label on pretty much anything you don't like, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to censor the other side to death and pretend their concerns don't exist, even if some of those concerns are inapprehensible or appalling.

In some European countries, you were (and well, still are) not allowed to say certain politically incorrect things out loud, which in some countries gave the far right a lot of votes and almost a majority. So people didn't grieve their concerns out loud, but the resentment came out amplified in votes and by other means... While an open debate would likely have created a better atmosphere and perhaps have presented some solutions.

In the long run, you are doing yourself a disservice not pulling everybody into the debate, including terrorists and people sliding into that direction.

I think censorship should be avoided, unless there is a direct and unambiguous call to violent action or a clear violation of other peoples' personal privacy (e.g. "doc'ing", releasing personal information that harms a person).

Cloudflare here admits that large companies are increasingly gatekeeps to the internet, especially in the case of controversial content. They have made a trade-off, and this is probably more about philosophical considerations or personal ideology, but I'd have put freedom of speech and neutrality before censorship of questionable content.