We can start with plainspoken intolerance, because it is pretty easy to identify. Going beyond that would be difficult, perhaps too difficult, but I don't think we need to go that far.

But intolerance is the only reasonable response to some kinds of behaviour.

We may be talking about different things, then. Would you be willing to give an example of acceptable intolerance? FWIW, in my mind, when I say 'intolerance' I am specifically not including legitimate policy disagreements or opinions about behavior.

I am intolerant of rudeness, personal abuse, and bigotry. I think refusing to tolerate those behaviours is acceptable, even positively desireable.

Typically governments? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country

Then if you're in the US you shouldn't support de-platforming, because the government protects hate speech here.

i think this is a culture mismatch between America and other places. we have no hate speech laws and have historically really disliked the idea of something like that in part because we trust our government a lot less than other countries. like, even liberals here will trust the government way less than right wingers in other countries. so we are pretty settled with our "clear and present danger" standard.

also wouldn't you acknowledge the government continues to regularly lie to the public? e.g. "masks don't work" at the beginning of coronavirus to keep people from buying them.

let me put this another way: it looks like you're in sweden where people trust the government a lot more. but would you be okay with joe biden or donald trump having significant control over "the truth"?

Control of the truth happens regardless. A large part of the US population still believes that the last election was stolen based on Trump’s story.

uhh does it though? your example directly disproves that because freedom to lie implies freedom to dissent and vice versa. the fact that people can go spread misinformation and that most sane people disagree, but others are still free to go talk about it proves that nobody has "control of the truth" and that's on balance a good thing.

Have you seen how Texas is going after anyone who participates in a boycott of Israel? Even if the governments you trust have a good definition of hate speech, think about how your least favorite politician might define it when they get into office. It's just too broad and easy to abuse.