X should die, or X are vile subhumans stealing our jobs, or we should rape X, or X are raping our dogs is hate.
"If my grandma had a rotor, she'd be a helicopter". I think it perfectly encapsulates your "slippery slope" argument, that if today we accept that saying you want to rape someone on Twitter is hate that needs to be stopped, tomorrow saying that processed foods are bad will be hate as well. Do you even realise how stupid your argument sounds? We're not talking about criticism. Were Nazis "criticizing" Jews? Do racists "criticize" other "races"? No, they hate them, and there is a pretty heavy difference between the two.
The word "racist" seems to have a thousand subtly (and not so subtly) different meanings depending on who is using it. I think this is a good example of the phenomena.
Do you think it impossible that someone could believe that Chinese people are more intelligent than Nigerians due to genetics without hating them? Or do you just think said person would not necessarily be racist?
Though you might have different standards... Would you say "So called transwomen are not women!" is hate speech?
"Hate" is a pretty Orwellian[1] word in this context, with a meaning pretty far from its usage a couple of decades ago.
Most usage I've seen has a distictively political bend.
E.g. "X are stupid and science proves it!" is not hate when X is "conservatives" but is when X is "muslims".
[1] see the section on meaningless words: https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
> Don’t know what the answer is, we don’t want echo chambers of misinformation, but we want to live in a democratic society too
If we want less echo chambers we'd need to stop censoring and banning those who disagree with us, otherwise they go elsewhere, encountering those similarly ostracized and form a natural echo chamber.