> providing hateful content spreads hate.

You talk as if hate is a kind of mind-virus which must be defeated with quarantine.

For one thing, this is illiberal. You're not respecting people as your equals if you want to stop hatred by preventing them from reading things that can make them hate.

But more importantly, if it's that way, we have lost already. The tools you want to fight these evils with, work just as well in the enemy's hands, if not better.

We need a way to fight propaganda which works better for us than for them.

> But more importantly, if it's that way, we have lost already.

Absolutely. If the status quo sees ideas as a risk to reduce, clearly it's fragile.

OK, apply that logic to the Bible and the Qur'an. Both endorse slavery. Both encourage believers to hate gays and to treat women as chattel. Countless followers have dedicated their lives to the tenets in these books, and in many cases they end up harming others because of it. Are you going to ban those books? If not, why not?

Because most people follow a neutered form of religion that isn't an acute or extreme threat to democracy and freedom. It is a diffuse threat to some freedoms for sure. But it doesn't compare to actual ISIS or fascist propaganda. There is no way to categorically separate these things. It's about matters of degree and pragmatically deciding to draw a line somewhere, instead of being ideologically pure and pretending that the best thing to do is draw no line.

You do know we have documented proof that broadcasting hate speech tends to cause people get violent, right? Should we allow free radio of a thousand hills [0] to broadcast?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Télévision_Libre_des_Mil...

Utterly disgusting take. Harassing and threatening people, unrelenting campaigns during years to drive them to suicide, is okay because it's "an effective tool to shut down" what you deem to be "degenerate" behaviour.

Many things aren't black and white but what you just said is pure evil. Your parents ought to be ashamed.

Instagram has driven people to suicide too, meta doesn't care. Same goes for any social platform.

You seem to have visited a very different Kiwifarms than I have. They always made a point about not interacting with the shown individuals. There haven't been any threatening or harassment campaigns. In fact people saying such things out loud have been shamed for their behaviour.

Not sure if you know the Chris Chan saga and the role Kiwifarms had and has in protecting Chris?

I am not excusing them, I have no exclusive opinion about them either. But your image of the site is simply wrong.

If you want to claim that they do, then you should provide some evidence. Preferably not in the form of circular references to unsourced blog posts/articles.

Just to be clear I didn't not mean to call anyone degenerate. I was just talking about some people's dangerous online behaviour that could harm others.