I think pejorative anti-whiteness is problematic as a communication strategy; it's counterproductive and you have to be steeped in a national conversation that only a couple hundred thousand people are having to understand how to take it (and I do not think that's true of anti-Black racism).
I also think that a lot of people selling anti-whiteness as an important doctrine are grifters.
But I also think it would be better for everyone if the term died out. I know it won't; Irish/Czech/Spanish people intermarry with German/Scottish people and their kids have no better term, I guess? But there's a notion that "if Black pride is positive, it should be positive to have White pride as well" which I think is deeply wrong. Maybe it was growing up along the South Side Irish parade route in Chicago that programmed me this way, but I see no evidence of European ethnic heritage being suppressed in the US.
I do not trust Twitter, Facebook, or Amazon to censor appropriately in the least. But that doesn't make it hard for me to evaluate these most recent decisions to cut off violent extremists! I'm fine with them booting Parler and DJT even though I'm less than fine with the idea of them evaluating all speech --- of course, that's one of the reasons 1A advocates so strongly support CDA S230.
I agree anti-Black racism is far more destructive. But I’m not trying to establish a hierarchy of the kinds of racism. I think anti-Black racism is far more destructive than anti-Asian racism, but as an Asian I’m pretty happy to see both kinds be deemed taboo in polite society.
We can’t have someone’s skin color being used in pejorative terms, and insofar as there are many people who think it’s acceptable, that only underscores why I’m tremendously skeptical of private sector censorship, where those people will disproportionately be in charge of shaping debate.