My perspective - and I know of a few folks who definitely share it, since I got it from them - is that it is actually a very easy problem to solve. Check out the concept "Tolerance is a peace treaty", which is easily summarized by "you are tolerated so long are you are tolerant."

My perspective is that this very easily and concisely handles the whole "do you tolerate the intolerant" question.

Except that never solves the question because both sides on a given issue just say, "I'm resisting their intolerance." The same way the south, in the civil war, claimed that they were rebelling because the government wasn't allowing them autonomy. Of course I agree that the government was only cracking down to the extent it needed to (slavery should have been outlawed, that shouldn't be a matter of "states' rights,") but most issues are not so obviously one-sided in their morality. Why are you the tolerant one if you ban the use of speech that teases other people? You're only being intolerant of those who are intolerant, insofar as they're making fun of others. Except now you've outlawed all teasing of Trump. So when it's teasing of your opposition that's outlawed, you rightly recognize it as tyrannical. No one should have the authority to control your speech.

Again, private platforms can enforce it how they please, but you've taken the scope of the discussion beyond just private platforms, and into an ideological discussion. Truth resists simplicity. There is no neatly packaged, "Oh, we can be intolerant because we consider our opposition intolerant first!" resolution to this whole issue. Even if you are just in suppressing hate speech, you hand the power to control the speech of others to authority -- and then, who regulates the authority itself? An even higher authority that doesn't let them allow hate speech? And then above them, who? Why do the same people who believe Trump is tyrannical (which I'm inclined to agree with, actually) also want to hand the government the power to punish people for wrongthink?

It begins to beg the question of whether people proposing hate speech laws actually don't see how easily infringement on free speech laws escalate into fascist abuse of power, even if they begin in a good place, or if they possibly want that fascist control themselves and just view people who disagree with them as the populace that needs to be suppressed.

Again, you may frame it as you just "not being tolerant of those who are intolerant," a very seemingly virtuous position of morally policing the populace, but then you're very much like the middle ages catholic church, the "moral authority" on society that needs to teach people about their original sin and why they're inherently sinful/bigoted/etc. and control what behavior is allowed. They'd consider themselves "tolerant" of everything except what was, in their eyes, evil, which is intolerant. So again, the issue remains unsolved, and in fact it seems the only people who want to act like the "tolerant of intolerance" issue is solved are people who want to say, "stop asking difficult questions, hand me the reigns to power, I know who deserves to be punished."

I don't even support hate speech - people shouldn't be saying vitriolic shit. I just don't see why the government is more trusted to enforce it. Just like I'm skeptical of gun control laws since they don't disarm the police, they only disarm the population and leave only the police armed to enforce said gun control. It isn't a matter of "oh, so you want hate speech/guns?" it's a matter of, "can you give a convincing argument for why this absolutely won't result in tyrannical abuse of power?"