To put it in perspective:

5 months ago Alex Jones was extreme. In this last round, Eli the computer guy was considered too extreme.

Your preferred term is? Or are you suggesting that no content should be removed, because of the difficulty of defining the word?

The US already has laws and other mechanisms for handling calls for violence, etc.

For problems of manipulation, I suggest the solution is not a politician or company getting to choose who gets to manipulate, but rather, becoming more resilient against manipulation.

Ok, but your earlier comment was that we shouldn't even use the term "extremism," so what term would you prefer that couldn't be abused in the same way?

Use existing terms and mechanisms. For example, "conspiracy to commit murder", and the mechanisms we have for dealing with that.

But that's what Google is doing. "extremism" is an existing term, and their demonetization and moderation mechanisms exist as well.

If you're suggesting Google should be prevented from moderating content that doesn't meet a strict definition of legal harm... fair enough, but there's nothing stopping laws from being passed which would justify Google's policies.

Remember the context of the discussion, which was the objection to the vagueness of the term.

Would it be okay to substitute "Five 9s of uptime" in an SLA with "solid uptime" and call it good?

> What I think would help is if we don't use a term like "extremism", which sounds like a term of sketchy censorship justification.

Well, advocating for genocide on Muslims, spreading deadly propaganda such as antivaxx or "great replacement" or such certainly qualifies as "extremism".