But there are zero downsides to just scrubbing as much of their bullshit off of the internet as we can.
I completely disagree. There is a myriad of downsides to censoring them. First off, who decides who can say what? Can some people express things that others can't? What if someone's joking, or they don't comprehend the meaning behind what they say?
If we pick someone who gets to decide who says what, how do we make sure they only block the bad things from being said?
Not just that, but once we start deciding that ideology A and ideology B are banned, what's stopping us from justifying ideology Z?
The slippery slope fallacy is a cheap argument I know, but usually societies that try to control how people speak end up trying to control how people think - since words are just an idea expressed socially. Eventually, a society trying to control thought will ban things that express those opinions they disagree with right? Like Hitler's book, or maybe Nazi propaganda?
Hell, we don't want people repeating the holocaust right? Let's just ban all the books that have Nazis in them. But people own those books, we should burn the books.
But then people will still remember that those books expressed those opinions, and we don't want those opinions to be shared with anyone else because they might repeat the same mistakes, so let's imprison them if they talk about it.
Well, what if those prisoners tell other prisoners and they get out and make the same mistakes the Nazis did? We can't have that, let's sentence them to death.
But now people are mad at us for killing them, and they don't know about the reason why because we don't want them to hear about Nazis... So they think we killed innocent people.
Why don't we make up some bad things about these people that know about those bad Nazis? That way everyone will hate them and maybe the population will help us hunt these 'bad' people down!
Let's say they are sick and less than human so people don't get mad at us when we kill them.
How do we convince everyone they are bad? We've been telling them that they are bad but only some people listened.
I guess we could put posters up showing everyone how to sort them out from normal people. We could put on the posters a bunch of bad things they did!
Like we could say they are child molesters and killers and liars! We'll call these bad people 'Blues'
Now most of the people are on our side, but there are a lot of people who are mad at us for doing all of this! We need to make sure they don't tell people the truth.
Let's just say that these people who don't listen to us are also blues! That way we can silence them.
Well, now the citizens are mad at us because the economy isn't doing very great. They want to stop me from being their leader anymore. I should say this is all the blues fault.
Well, now we have too many blues to kill easily. Were spending too much on lethal injection and bullets. Let's just take them all and put them out in the country in a fenced area to make sure they don't escape or talk. We can use them to make bullets for us, and we can force them into cheaper labor since they're just disgusting blues, they don't deserve nice beds and good food.
I know I got carried away there, but nothing good can come from censoring ideas that you don't like.
The proper way to handle (Imo) fascist and white supremacist rhetoric is to educate your citizens better, and to encourage and respect other cultures.
The end result of all fascist and white supremacy groups is the death of our species, because 'white' is a fluid concept that changes when it needs to. Once all the 'non-whites' are gone, now the red heads go, or the Italians, or the poor. It always gets smaller until no one is left really.