The way to stave off censorship (i. e.) regulation is not insisting on the harmlessness of these people, or arguing against the revealed preference that shows t

The way to stave off censorship (i. e.) regulation is not insisting on the harmlessness of these people, or arguing against the revealed preference that shows that the web is useful for them[0]. It's establishing technologies and customs that reduce the usefulness of the net for extremists. But all I hear in the tech community are appeals to a sort of moral nihilism that nothing can be done, because it's supposedly impossible to distinguish anti-semitic conspiracies from any other opinion. Or that even the idea of technological changes, or licenses, or codes of conducts, could serve any role in making some tools less useful for the bad guys while preserving its usefulness for everyone else. It's slippery-slope fallacies all the way down. And in many cases, I'm left unsure if some righteous defenders of free speech haven't actually at some point started to identify with the vile cesspool they claim to defend only in the name of the larger concept. 0: (Telling people to leave facebook is also not the best advice, in they that "just don't go to that part of town" does not adequately replace policing)