You're just using abstraction to move the subject from the first incidence of 'intolerance' to the second, ie suggesting that FB's choice to target content is the epitome of intolerance, rather than considering the nature of the content they are attempting to socially sanction.

Eliding context to reframe a specific action as a general behavior is misleading, although you may not have realize this.

Then you are not arguing that OP missed the point of the Paradox of Intolerance. You are arguing that Holocaust denialism is not intolerance.

How many people publicly deny the Holocaust but are otherwise tolerant of Jews, homosexuals, etc.? I'm really curious what you think that Venn diagram looks like.

If you're posting actually intolerant views, yes, be intolerant to intolerance. That's not this though.

Banning views that may be associated with otherwise intolerant people but aren't themselves intolerant is just a road to hell. It's literally stereotyping.

You could draw a lot of very hateful venn diagrams against most major religions. That shouldn't stop people from expressing their faith because you can draw a line.

Holocaust denial is inseparably bound up with being intolerant of the right for Jews (and Roma, and Homosexuals, and so forth.) to exist.

If you are a holocaust denialist, then you are by definition absolutely intolerant, and I am perfectly fine with you being expunged from any community of the civilised.

I disagree with your premise. Just because a belief can be associated with another belief by a venn diagram of people who believe them, doesn't make the two intrinsically linked.

I am a person of jewish descent, and I find the action of silencing people far more disturbing and closer to that of the reich, than those of the people being silenced.

I disagree with your definition of "intrinsically linked."

if the Venn diagram is nearly a circle, the two are intrinsically linked.