I don't agree that free speech absolutism attracts totalitarians exclusively. But I do agree it will attract those that have a hard time finding a place elsewhere. Anyone who can be tolerated on twitter, which isn't a high bar, wouldn't go elsewhere unless ideologically motivated to do so (mind this doesn't necessitate horrible views, some people want to oppose censorship not because they themselves are censored). People who hold objectionable views won't change their minds when censored, and they won't change their minds because they're being told they are wrong or somehow deficient. But we have to do something to lead people to have better beliefs, there has to be a way to redeem the objectionable people of the world. If one is to choose to not help these people, in my cynical opinion the only other option is too cynical to post.

Here's the thing, though: Societies always have norms, and norms are enforced by making norm-breaking views shunned. Letting people speak their objectionable views with no repercussions normalises those views, and makes them more acceptable.

Objectionable views HAVE to be opposed, or they will fester and grow. Polite disagreement doesn't help, because the person will just go on to post them again, and again, and again. The fact that I politely disagreed with one of them will not help with the other 99 times.

There needs to be visible consequences for breaking norms, or the norms themselves will break.

There are enough repercussions for deviating from the norm in modern western societies, especially offline. Again, toxic people congregating to indulge in their __wrong__ beliefs wouldn't be nearly as bad online if they weren't ostracized offline.

I agree, there must be a way to have the better beliefs to survive and the lesser beliefs die, but ostracizing people who hold the lesser ones doesn't rid them of the beliefs.