I've typically been in support of moderating speech, but it's an easy thing to support when I'm in the large majority for whom it favours. At the same time this

I've typically been in support of moderating speech, but it's an easy thing to support when I'm in the large majority for whom it favours. At the same time this is only to a point: burning books to silence an opposition, for example, is no good no matter whether that book is Mein Kampf or Harry Potter. It's harder to apply with social media: deleting the account or the post doesn't delete the person or their audience. In fact, the Streisand effect might even serve to radicalise other people as their controversial statements are broadcasted to a much wider audience to attract that precious ad revenue. In the UK we have a so-called candidate for the UKIP part who is only serving to gain more notoriety (and therefore fame) as someone who considers talking about whether or not they'd rape someone a way of 'saying it like it is'. For every person who reads about this and becomes outraged about how this person can even be considered a representative of the UK in EU Parliament, there will be just as many who read it and celebrate the man when they had never previously heard of him. I had completely dismissed this so-called Sargon of Akkad for a long time as being irrelevant, until the media made him relevant. People are still going to be sharing that stuff even when the accounts are banned. There'll be memes and quotes in images and other groups popping up in their wake. I have no idea how you solve this now we are ultimately connected on a global scale.