There's a predictable cycle each time you ban toxic users. There is a core of incredibly toxic users, surrounded by a halo of sympathizers. When the toxic users

There's a predictable cycle each time you ban toxic users. There is a core of incredibly toxic users, surrounded by a halo of sympathizers. When the toxic users get banned, the sympathizers will argue in bad faith, moving heaven and Earth to insist that the ban was either unfair, inconsistent, ineffectual, or extreme, or a violation of their interpretation of free speech. To whatever extent there was an actual debate with neutral parties, I think it was likely inflamed by these kinds of actors, and the fact that there's no there there at the end of the day isn't entirely surprising, even in light of significant debate on the question.