I feel like these types of "free speech solves hate" arguments should be automatically rejected until the author gives evidence that rational argumentation work

I feel like these types of "free speech solves hate" arguments should be automatically rejected until the author gives evidence that rational argumentation works. I see this type of comment all the time, but there's never any evidence except for historical examples that aren't directly relevant. It's quite tiresome and inflammatory. There's proof that Reddit is now a happier place. The commenter must prove, using evidence not fear mongering, that the negative effects of deplatforming outweigh the positives. I think deplatforming is especially good on Reddit. Take subreddits like The_Donald. People who go there are constantly barged with blatantly false information. If The_Donald was banned they would be forced to integrate with the rest of Reddit (exposing them to more true information) OR a smaller portion of them would go to voat, but that smaller portion couldn't be saved anyway.