No it hasn't. Propaganda and hatred has just become more sophisticated and super-charged by new tools (social media, Internet etc.) in order to maximize it's spread among the community. These new tools also allow bigots to self-organize, privately in ways never before possible.

I think where you are running into trouble is that you have made the assumption (your own subjectivity) that these are just bigots with no validity.

And what does sophistication of means has to do with the subjectivity mentioned?

Bigotry and it's resulting political/social forms have and will evolve, constantly adapting to retain and grow. Hatred is not "increasingly subjective", hatred has become more sophisticated making it harder to detect.

Not sure how you are coming to this conclusion, yes it can become more sophisticated while also be on a sliding scale of what people consider "hatred" from one year to the next. I'm not sure what is not to grok about this conclusion.

Thank you for this clarification.

But if it has not been increasingly subjective, but harder to detect, then what you are implying, if I do not distord your point of view, is that it is okay to be stricter in policing to catch stop these sophisticated bigots.

But, doesn't being more strict mean that you'll also have more false negatives, that is people that always had "heretic" talk from the point of view of general society, without necessarily being a bigot, but are now being identified as such because the criteria are paint with a broader brush?

And then, wouldn't you agree that this is a restriction of free speech, that people on the other side are arguing to be unacceptable?

> is that it is okay to be stricter in policing to catch stop these sophisticated bigots.

Yes, although of course that depends on your definition of "policing" and by whom (state vs private) Are we still talking about Facebook?

> But, doesn't being more strict mean that you'll also have more false negatives

Yes (in either case above). What you're asking about is the margins, and of course we need oversight to prevent abuse both in the private and public sector.

> And then, wouldn't you agree that this is a restriction of free speech, that people on the other side are arguing to be unacceptable?

Again, not sure if we're still talking FB.

I'm going to bow out now, thank you for the debate.