I've been taking a stand in my own life with friends about having hard conversations and not just drinking the coolaid of every inflammatory headline.
Its been very difficult to discussing with some friends that their views are far more radical than they realize.
Some time these conversations can be agonizing because ultimately you may not care "what side is correct" just that there is an honest discussion about the facts of the matter and even going into the facts of the matter can cause repulsive reactions.
Its strange the world we live in, in terms of discussions of ideas.
That aphorism has never really been true. If it's "fire" in the sense of projectile weapons, then of course you can. If it's "fire" in the sense of "forest fire," a controlled or prescribed burn is an oft-used technique to cut off a forest fire by creating an unburnable zone around it... The fire can't find fuel in an already-burned area, so it can no longer feed itself and dies out.
“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — 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, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
― Karl Raimund Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
----
But anyway, IMHO it's not for websites to police free speech, that's what the judiciary is for.
I'm not sure whether I consider the new EU terrorist content regulation to be good or bad, it's going to depend on what "competent authority" giving the removal orders means.
The "specific measures to protect [...] against dissemination to the public of terrorist content" just seem like usual moderation tools, but again, it's left to be seen what is going to happen in practice.
To withdraw to identifying people with their world-views is to give up on having a meaningful relationship. We do it because we can't tolerate them. The conclusion of that train of reactions is violence.