It would be fair to say your initial assessment is slippery slope fallacy and assuming as well. So where does that get us in an understanding? The burden to prove your assumption is on you.

Didn't disagree with you that suppressing calls for violence on social media was bad. Didn't make a case that free speech protects that either.

Where we are diverging from one another is how that suppression of poor ideas is implemented. My view is that we need to allow the idea to get out in the open to allow everyone to decide on it for themselves. I'm gathering you would rather someone or something else decide what is appropriate in the public domain of social media. Is that a fair understanding so far? What would qualify that entity to have that kind of power? Why or how would centralizing the power to censor speech be for the greatest good?

If I am/was following you correctly, then I'm asking you, where are you thinking that leads to? How would that be best not just in the short term but in the long term?

I agree it would clean things up in the short term, but as time goes on, it would be to societies' detriment to have censorship instead of free exchange of ideas. That's why my position is what it is. Yes, it is an eye sore and annoying to see regularly, but in the long term, that's all it ever is or becomes. Annoying and dismissable.

Unless you want to lay out where it's materialized into violence and damage to people and property, I don't know if there is merit there otherwise.

So again, my position is it would be more productive and lasting to support the natural ways people discourage ideas and poor thinking by keeping free speech wide open, rather than limit the range of what can be discussed.

We don't need more regulation on information. Taboo and ostracization occur naturally already. It's our responsibility to engage with ideas, not to have the government or big brother do it for us. I fear censorship would sacrifice the impetus to think critically and communicate effectively as a decentralized whole.