When you remove their funding - by demonetizing them - their spread slows.
you need to understand that the people who are convinced of these ideas are easily manipulated emotionally. All you really need to do is offer them a meaning and a feeling of belonging to a group. they don't care about facts, you need to emphasize about the group's betrayal to them.
A newspaper is not obligated to publish every letter-to-the-editor which comes its way.
A scientific journal is not obligated to publish every article submitted. Articles are even retracted.
Their failure to publish is neither "cutting someone's tongue" nor "censorship". Or, if it is censorship, it's been around since forever, making the term meaningless.
Why should Google have an obligation to publish that no other media company has?
(I also agree with DanBC that what you wrote is not true. Among other things, why are there so many anti-vaxxers when the anti-anti-vaxxers have used the techniques you mentioned, and more, and when there is no credible doubt about the lack of connection between vaccinations and autism?)
Not that rational arguments seem to work in this discussion...
Since the broader term includes more materials than "badly drawn anime comics", it appears you do not understand what most people usually mean by "Nazis". (To confirm my suspicion, I see at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729764 that you used the phrase "national socialists knew very well", suggesting that you consider it as a term for people in the past, and not those in the present. How then did any of them have web sites, and were interested in anime?)
By the way, many people who, seemingly hyper-pedantically narrow the use of "Nazi" for "actual national socialists" or (seen elsewhere) "members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" are often deliberately derailing the topic. My advice is to not follow practices which might mistakenly get you labeled as a Nazi sympathizer.
In any case, the HN guideline is to assume the "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize". "Actual national socialists" is a much weaker and not really justifiable interpretation.
I just wanted to point out that I actually visited the site once and it was ridiculous from top to bottom without any significant amount of users (per page rank). They were spectacularly banned which just seems to be like upgrading the position of North Korea. Something you might want to avoid. I believe it is worth thinking about it.
> My advice is to not follow practices which might mistakenly get you labeled as a Nazi sympathizer.
Me being a bit non-conformist from time to time is actually pretty useful against ideologies like nazism. Guilt by association is a different story however. But you are correct, let us be more self critical about that.
While that certainly includes antisemitism, most of the people in the organizations you describe do not consider themselves white, nor, I suspect, are they doing so because of a believe in some variant of Aryan racial superiority.
That makes them "not Nazis".
Similarly, those killed in the Holocaust included Slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roma, and homosexuals. Though these were considered racially inferior, deviant, or enemy nationals, while the Jews were falsely maligned as a 'counter-race', deserving of far worse treatment.
That does not make all anti-LGBT people Nazis by extension.
Just like it does not make all anti-Semites Nazis.
the best solution is to fight them back by showing them the opposite ideas. don't censor Nazis, put as advertisements and suggestions to positive content highlighting why they are wrong.