Popper never said anything of the sort. Quoting from the same link you posted: "The term "paradox of tolerance" does not appear anywhere in the main text of Th

Popper never said anything of the sort. Quoting from the same link you posted: "The term "paradox of tolerance" does not appear anywhere in the main text of The Open Society and Its Enemies. Rather, Popper lists the above as a note to chapter 7, among the mentioned paradoxes proposed by Plato in his apologia for "benevolent despotism"—i.e., true tolerance would inevitably lead to intolerance, so autocratic rule of an enlightened "philosopher-king" would be preferable to leaving the question of tolerance up to majority rule. In the context of chapter 7 of Popper's work, specifically, section II, the note on the paradox of tolerance is intended as further explanation of Popper's rebuttal specific to the paradox as a rationale for autocracy: why political institutions within liberal democracies are preferable to Plato's vision of benevolent tyranny, and through such institutions, the paradox can be avoided." "The chapter in question explicitly defines the context to that of political institutions and the democratic process, and rejects the notion of "the will of the people" having valid meaning outside of those institutions. Thus, in context, Popper's acquiescence to suppression when all else has failed applies only to the state in a liberal democracy with a constitutional rule of law that must be just in its foundations, but will necessarily be imperfect". Don't get me wrong, I make no excuses for those people. They are garbage human beings that I would rather see dead than alive, but we must be sufficiently lucid to keep separate our personal preferences and our public policy proposals. Facebook certainly has 100% the right to make that move, and I'm personally happy to see it. But the floor is extra-slippery. Let's be careful.