> And specifically, history teaches us that certain narratives are dangerous to civic sanity and human life: Naziism, revanchism, hypernationalism, fomenting ethnic hatred, and so on.

Otherwise they only really get into the politics side of things in the "Rule of Law" section and my read on that was "this is my opinion and the opinion of my community". That entire section was about how politics varies greatly by region and doesn't (at least to me) suggest that certain ideas are inherently dangerous by their binary "left-right" political affiliation.

As far as I know, the dead Germans didn't have much of an internet presence.

And what counts as racism? Are we talking Call-of-duty lobby or "microaggressions" and true-but-unsavory comments on crime?

I'd much rather just let the actual racists speak and out themselves as racists than any of the other alternatives. We have universities banning the word "brownbag" for racism - I don't trust anyone to play the censor no matter how virtuous their claim.

Something I've noticed over the years.

Digg: We stand for freedom of speech.

Digg establishes censorship and everyone leaves for reddit.

Reddit: We stand for free speech.

Reddit establishes censorship and everyone leaves for X, bluesky, mastodon.

X, bluesky, and mastodon: We stand for free speech.

X, bluesky, and mastodon establishes censorship and everyone leaves.

Dead internet theory: We stand for robots talking to each other while everyone moves to censorship free avenues.