> I think you underestimate how fragile Democracy is and you don't need to look much farther than Moscow.

Which is exactly why we need to uphold classical liberal principles, as well as speak truth with appropriate nuance.

The best way to deal with a bad idea is with a better idea, not by silencing the bad idea.

I'd have a lot more respect for Google in this case if they, in collaboration with researchers and experts, produced their own well-researched, nuanced, carefully stated arguments against what they disagree with.

Ahh the old paradox of tolerance. What you preach has failed literally every time it has been tried throughout history. You can’t stop intolerance with tolerance, you will lose every time. Full stop. And the irony of preaching tolerance while downvoting me is ripe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

> You can’t stop intolerance with tolerance, you will lose every time. Full stop.

[citation needed]. Popper's personal opinion that you linked to (and that is now used in a much more absolutist way that originally intended by its author, who never intended to cheer for censorship and crackdowns in name of democracy) isn't data and Full stop isn't a proof. Yes, Popper was smart. No, he wasn't an oracle of unquestionable wisdom.

Tell me, how was legalization of marijuana in the U.S. won? After all, chucking people into prison for decades is quite some intolerance. Did the MJ lovers stage an insurrection?

No, they won at the ballot box, which is the tolerant way. Not by reverse oppression of their enemies.

To disprove a sentence that says "every time", one example to the contrary is enough. This is your example. For another, take gay rights. There wasn't a gay revolution that would smite the religious conservatives and crush them.

> You can’t stop intolerance with tolerance, you will lose every time. Full stop.

I'm not proposing full tolerance of the intolerant. Rather, as Karl Popper explained, political institutions within a liberal democratic society are the most appropriate scope within which the people's will regarding what to tolerate is expressed. In other words, contact your representatives about what needs to be outlawed, and until something is outlawed, show liberal tolerance—which absolutely includes refuting bad ideas in public debate.

Regarding YouTube, their choice to deplatform people is their choice -- and it's not against the law, since they own the platform. I certainly disagree with the wisdom behind their choice. It's likely to cause more problems than it solves; but I'm tolerating it even as I argue against it in public debate.

(also, I didn't downvote you)

At first pass, I don't see how this applies to people sharing information about vaccines whether personal experience, science, or misunderstood science.

How would you say that people sharing information about vaccines and their effects are intolerant?

How would you say that people not wanting to get vaccinated are intolerant of any particular demographic group? That's not targeting anyone by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion. It's a decision for them self about their person.

So you’re saying we need to censor to protect freedom of speech?

I am not an American. I actually live in a country that was a kicking baloon of totalitarian powers for decades.

The first instinct of an autocrat is to strangle free speech of his critics. This has been the case since forever.

For all their errors, societies that do have wide freedom of speech rarely lapse into tyrannies on their own account. The freedom to say that the emperor's new clothes are bullsh*t is precious.

As for your historical examples, Weimar democracy was deeply flawed in that it tolerated party militias and a lot of violence in the streets. Once people are threatened physically, they will seek 'protection' from gangsters. But violence is something very different from actual words.

And China isn't a case of a democracy that was taken over by cunning speeches of its enemies. CCP got into power by winning a civil war.

So we need to apply heavy-handed censorship to silence dissent so that we don’t turn into an authoritarian country like China or Russia where they use heavy-handed censorship to silence dissent.

Exactly. You don't uphold democracy by silencing its critics, either.

Democracy and liberal freedom is best upheld when (a) the government is founded on the principles of liberty and rule-of-law, and (b) the people treasure those principles and refuse to tolerate a government that fails to uphold them.