An even if they didn't agree with the sentiment, many or even most of those on the platform were perfectly happy to fraternise with those that did.

Should we still have due process in the external world? After all, the United States is a "safe haven" for people who talk about killing pretty much every minority group under the sun.

> the world is a little more complex than "privacy at all costs."

The line doesn't have to do with the infringement of privacy, it's about whether that infringement is being done by publicly sanctioned power, or the whim of the arbitrary, domineering power of private (tech) actors. Elizabeth Anderson has written quite well on this topic in "Private Government."

That applies equally to the rest of the internet.

So let's start by looking at Hacker News. Where on HN can we see people plotting mass executions like that?

In the initial post about the Capitol being shut down,t here were people saying that everyone who broke into the capitol building needed to be tried for treason and executed, or saying that the police should have opened fire and killed anyone who broke in. The mods removed the comments, but HN isn't some paragon of virtue that isn't susceptible to the same calls for violence as any other site.

Mods removing those comments sort of proves that HN isn't a safe haven for the calls for violence.

Those comments and posts are removed from Parler as well: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/parler-lin-wood-...

No, not really. It comes down to how you define "safe haven" - if violent groups are actively moderated and banned, then I don't think it can be called a safe haven. How does the rest of the internet equate to Parler in this respect?