It's extraordinarily difficult to argue both ways: that free speech is crucial to liberal democracy and that hate speech / propaganda / disinformation / advertising have no results or consequences.

And yet that seems to be much of the anti-regulation debate position, including as I read, yours.

My view is that speech is consequential, and that we should, with extreme care, be prepared for some regulation.

Not arguing one way or the other for these regulations, but I think dismissing the negative effects of this type of online content is a huge mistake, as it does cause real, sizable problems. ISIS probably wouldn't have been able to exist without their propaganda videos. Multiple mass shootings had direct connections to the perpetrators' radicalization in online forums. Fake, foreign-state-sponsored news had an impact in democratic elections from the 2016 US presidential election to Brexit.

It's one thing to argue these regulations will have negative (unintended or otherwise) consequences, but it's quite another to just pretend the porblem doesn't exist.

ISIS probably wouldn't have been able to exist without ___:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/blowback-isi...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-15/weapons-went-cia-i...

ISIS and other “bad things” you’re probably right to some extent, but what about all the good things that wouldn’t exist either? Awareness of police brutality, corporate corruption, country wide revolutions, marginalized people’s rights, an individual blossoming in an online community. The list goes on, there is much debate to the point that this type of regulation will cause “takedown by default” for all content and push the good and bad to the fringe.

I absolutely agree, but as you point out you need to honestly look at both sides of the coin, not pretend that one side of the coin has no negatives at all.