Advertising is hateful content. Ban the entire marketing industry now please.

Censorship or not, tolerance is a social contract, and those who want to undo this system must be stopped by any means possible. Content moderation is actually the compromise.

I mean it is censorship. But not all censorship is bad.

Suddenly they care. One dead CEao and a bunch of whiny scared Billionaires is enough to stop 10 years of hateful content. Interesting lesson right there. Censorship is only good if it protects the rich.

Some might argue that calling what happens in Gaza a genocide might be hate speach against Israel, and it should be censored. So who decides what is "hate" and what is not?

Who decides when the content is "hateful"? The perpetrators of genocide characterize themselves as marginalized and their victims as a force seeking to eradicate them. That is the problem with censorship. Those are the people who end up with the control of speech. You end up with an Orwellian inversion of concepts like hateful speech for the exact reason that they can be weaponized for profit and power.

You show me which fascist government is going to censor the fascists living under it. It's a paradox. They will not. They will censor the resistance.

If in a work of fiction I have a villain call my hero the n-word to demonstrate that the villain is an unapologetic racist, and I am told that I can't have that because the word is bad in and of itself and that racist behavior cannot be tolerated even in fiction..

That is censorship, even if your goals are noble they are also ignorant, as showing disgusting things in fiction is often done in order to condemn similar behavior in real life.

If you call a black person the n-word in real life, and he stomps your ass.

This isn't censorship, this is comedy.

If one goes onto an online community and calls its members radical insults in an unfriendly clearly non-joking hostile manner. Then the guilty party should be removed from that community,

Yes, but just deleting without comment, as if it never existed, isn't the solution either.

a belief held by most reasonable people and only opposed by Nazis

Here on Lemmy, people who claim to advocate for freedom of speech and information, demanding for social networks to be shutdown and people to be censored based on unknown and ambiguous criteria, without even understanding the implications of it.

Details at six

It IS censorship and they should stop saying it isn't, but they should clearly say "we will censor X because Y" and be transparent about it. Censorship where the majority of population agrees with it is still censorship, but approved and accepted for the greater good.

Now, the question is what does "hateful" mean? And where does "hateful" start and begin? Is saying "I hate my neighbour" and "I hate Nazis" the same? Is "I hate gay people" and "I hate Manchester United" the same? Why not focus on violence instead of hate. We should have the freedom to hate (hear me out...) but in the end it is a feeling and a preference and no censorship will change that. What should be prevented at all costs however, is violent content. People can love or hate whoever, but they shouldn't be allowed to call upon any type of violence towards them.

Someone hating someone doesn't change a thing, but someone calling for attacks against someone - this is a whole new dimension and deserves total censorship.

Well it depends on the definition of censor.

If you define censor as, "to suppress or delete as objectionable" (Webster) then it fits just fine.

He just wants more censorship. They will ban “hateful” content, and then reclassify anything they don’t like as hateful. We’re already seeing a number of platforms and institutions labeling criticism of Israel as hate speech.