"especially when those said groups are overtly and unmistakably intolerant themselves"

To me that seems like a pretty clear line. Some groups will invariably try to straddle it, but plenty of groups on Facebook make it quite clear their level of hate for others.

Define intolerant. If group A says group B is lying about some historical fact, is that in and of itself intolerance?

As far as holocaust denial goes, I don't think there's a mystery as far as the basis for such claims.

So if someone says "yes, Hilter wanted to kill all the Jews, but he only killed 5M, not 6M" is that intolerant? Because in many circles that's regarded as denialism or revisionism.

This is the exact issue - what doesn't "intolerant" mean? It's a subjective label.

I don't think "he only killed 5M, not 6M" is holocaust denial.

I don't think of folks trying to do estimates in the range you're talking about involves denying it took place.

Sure:

> This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speech and free society intact, one where the tolerant voices aren't drained out by the relentlessness and irrationality of the intolerant.

Could easily be used to ban Islam on Facebook. Or Scientology. Or far left / far right governments. Or Antifa / Proud Boys / other vigilante groups. Or popularly supported groups with a fringe element (BLM). Or free market capitalists, or communists.

As one should already gather from reading above, I am not suggesting that Facebook should ban any of these.

Ultimately every group doesn't tolerate something, and this argument could be used to ban them.

To me a wholesale ban on a religion, whose practitioners vary wildly seems like a completely different thing.

Holocaust denial is pretty specific in comparison.

What % of a religion would need to be, say, anti-gay, before we deem the whole thing problematic and ban it from facebook?

The more I investigate "where to draw the line", the more I'm convinced we aren't capable of doing so in a just fashion.

100% is fine.

That's the thing with neonazis. They are 100% in agreement about ethnic violence. It isn't a side effect of their belief system. It is the core of their belief system that undesirable people should be murdered.

Which neo nazi groups are currently a problem in the US?

What left wing groups would you consider banning?

I feel like any given region's propensity to say not like a particular sexual orientation is dramatically different from say holocaust denial that is straight up rooted in antisemitism.

So you're making a narrow case that holocaust denial is specifically bad and not endorsing more policing by facebook in general?

There's certainly precedent for holocaust denial being considered specifically and uniquely harmful, although it feels a little dated in the year 2020.

All hate groups seem dated, sadly hate doesn't seem to just sort of become a thing of the past :(

As far as you question goes to some extent yes. I wouldn't want to see some sort of litmus test for groups that clearly aren't purely a hate group.

A specific christian identity group (randomly made up here) that is hateful, no problem with removing them. All Christian groups, no.

Why not? Nearly every interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah is anti gay (I personally interpret the story as about not raping, but that's off topic).

Why wouldn't it be OK to ban a belief system that specifically discriminates against an innate feature?

I don't think that any system that has something you can find objectionable about it would mean you should ban a group.

There is a difference between groups with some questionable beliefs about others, and those whose groups are entirely about hating other people.

That's a reasonable answer, but note that's it's a different answer from the OP - you're not proposing to ban intolerance per se, but rather any group whose purpose is solely intolerance.

> for groups that clearly aren't purely a hate group.

As an atheist, I do find them a hate group. Are you going to declare militant atheism intolerant, or religion?

I'm not at all sure why simply being an atheist would be a hate group.

I don't know what "militant atheism" is though.

Why is religion different from other views?

It kind of is a legal requirement in Germany already, so there is this.

Somewhere. Usually what happens is that it's drawn at the place that makes everyone unhappy. It's far enough in that some will cry censorship make casual dystopian insinuations, but well short of anything that actually makes in impact leading others to say it's ineffective because they can see obvious hate being allowed. And it happens because line-drawers are terrified of type 1 errors thanks to the media shitstorm that happens whenever it happens to someone with an audience.

This pattern happens everywhere: It's the same story with Google and obvious-spam/scams, and Amazon with fakes. Until a company has the balls to say that you're gonna have to suck it up and deal with false positives the cycle will continue forever.

To quote Oscar Wilde: "Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace."

I think that drawing a line between reason and unreasonableness is a reasonable place to draw the line.

If our understanding of Holocaust history is correct, which overwhelming evidence supports, it is reasonable to believe that the Holocaust both occured, and was absolutely awful. Given that, denial of those events is unreasonable, and damaging to society as a whole. Much like the slavery of African Americans, it needs to be acknowledged and accepted as fact, and those who try to hide or dispute these facts must be challenged.