That sentence stood out to me as well, and my reaction was: why would we ever stop teaching children why those things are bad? If we stop having that debate th

That sentence stood out to me as well, and my reaction was: why would we ever stop teaching children why those things are bad? If we stop having that debate then people will forget the lessons of history and why we fought those things. And you can't have a debate without having both sides represented. It's toxic and shameful for fascist, racist Internet trolls to make personal attacks against people and my sense is that the main solution needs to be better tooling for helping victims block their attackers (this might conflict with the DNA of today's social platforms). But we can and should consider this stuff a teaching opportunity. As well as an opportunity to engage the other side--the majority of people who post hateful messages online aren't latent McVeighs, they're immature, frustrated about something, and acting out. As always the best antidote is to engage with the ones who are willing to have a rational conversation, and ignore the ones who aren't until they cool down. If someone is espousing racist ideas the best outcome is for everybody to take a chill pill, discuss their point of view and why you don't share it, and agree to disagree. Suppression will lead to echo chambers and radicalization. Communities live or die based on their ability to sustain civil discourse between divergent opinions. In my opinion no communications platform should suppress speech of any political persuasion, but personal attacks and hostility should be discouraged on all of them.