I love seeing how often people's (mostly on Reddit) answer to the question "how do we determine who're the nazis?" and they answer glibly "easy, they're the literal nazis'.

We've seen this all before with the "terrorist" label, the "communist" label in Hollywood blacklists, various Puritan attempts at censorship for sex, films, music, etc.

I wished I believed this much in our centralize opaque institutions to create these red lines consistently, reliably, and fairly. Which is amusing because much of the people pushing for this the hardest are often the same people who would never hand over such power in almost any other scenario.

The only reliable outcome, that we've seen repeatedly over and over in history is that once you start expanding censorship beyond just the obviously bad-guys (spam, violence, etc) and start wadding into the grey areas of speech is that:

a) context and intention, which are critical in day-to-day discourse, are increasing ignored as the system scales and the scope increases

b) the line will only keep expanding into a broader and broader group ("you did it for x, why not y?!!")

c) false positives dramatically increase

d) due process is only afforded in rare situations where the individual is already famous/powerful and can stir up enough controversy forcing the gatekeepers to actually consider it carefully

Everything goes great at the beginning as you sweep up the low hanging fruit. It's the long run where this 'solution' really gets tested - which is the phase we're now entering on many platforms.