Firstly, the Nazis rose despite and possibly helped by speech laws.

> My new favorite wiki page (for now) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Secondly, Popper is not calling for speech to be supressed in any way except for those who choose violence instead of speech. The original[1] is better than a Wikipedia article that cuts off the important part of his words:

> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion…

Hence he is supportive of the right to discussion for all. He contrasts this with those who won't support speech and sets the limits:

> for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols

They've given up on speech so he gives up on tolerance, which is wise. Free speech is there to reduce violence and supplant it and nothing Popper wrote in the "paradox of tolerance" contradicts that.

[1] https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPoppe...

Which we cannot do the way Youtube worked until now. The way YouTubes algorithms worked rational argument gets drowned out and public opinion cannot keep anyone in check.