Apologies, I think we are talking past each other. I think I misunderstood your initial comment. It read like a suggestion that lemmy's more extreme communities were terroristic and a criticism of the first amendment, which suggested that you believe the government should be allowed to dictate what kind of speech is or isn't acceptable -- in particular on these little platforms. My comment was in response to that notion.

Re-reading it with your second comment, I think you're saying that "terrorist ideologies" have been allowed to develop on conventional social-media by claiming first amendment protections in order to not moderate communities, and 2016 was not in reference to early lemmy but to the MAGA movement. That makes more sense, and I generally agree that conventional social-media follows irresponsible stewardship practices.