If people are banned from the places where a substantial portion of the public political debate occurs, e.g. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced.

People advocate for their interests peacefully by participating in the public political debate.

If their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced, then their attempts to peacefully advocate for their interests are a waste of their time.

You are making an assumption which contradicts your conclusion. If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence.

If your YouTube video gets taken down, you can re-upload something that is better reasoned and less prone to inciting violence. If you can't do this, then you message is inherently violent, and there was never any peaceful outcome in the first place.

Either way, I'd still rather have extremists arming themselves than spending their lives convincing others to take up violence on their behalf.

>If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence.

Could you word this another way? I do not understand what you're saying.

>then you message is inherently violent

Can you please be specific and give an example of a political ideology that is inherently violent, and also one that is not inherently violent, other than pure pacifism?

>Either way, I'd still rather have extremists arming themselves than spending their lives convincing others to take up violence on their behalf.

Because you are worried that people are going to buy what they're selling? Why are you worried about that, specifically?

You are supposing that there exists a peaceful YouTuber who's (a) dedicated to the peaceful advocacy of their interests, (b) banned from YouTube, and (c) unwilling to advocate their interests on any other platform except through the use of violence. (a) and (c) are contradictory. Supposedly you are justifying this by assuming YouTube is the only platform from which one can peacefully advocate their interests. It is not. You could even return to YouTube with moderated content.

I do not find this hypothetical YouTuber to be a peaceful advocate for anybody's interests.

>You are supposing that there exists a peaceful YouTuber who's (a) dedicated to the peaceful advocacy of their interests, (b) banned from YouTube, and (c) unwilling to advocate their interests on any other platform except through the use of violence.

No, I'm not. First, the people driven to violence are not necessarily going to be the content producers. The audience can also be driven to violence by seeing the message they agree with censored. Second, the point is that there are no other equivalent platforms to YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, in terms of their reach.

>It is not.

What are the other platforms where people can meaningfully participate in the public political debate?

>You could even return to YouTube with moderated content.

It's up to YouTube to decide what counts as "moderated content". They are currently under no obligation to act in good faith.