Well I suppose as long as you're on the good side of history it's ok to apply censorship to people who are on the bad side of history. Isn't that what the argum

Well I suppose as long as you're on the good side of history it's ok to apply censorship to people who are on the bad side of history. Isn't that what the argumentation you put forth boils down to? I mean sure, ethically, if you know that bad things will happen if you allow free speech, then you are ethically obliged to not allow it. Not a very complex situation ethically. But what happens when you are wrong about the bad things that would happen if you allowed free speech. Being right in some cases does not mean being right in all cases. And as far as I can see, it is not a clear cut ethical situation in that regard. There is a clear line-drawing problem. Is all nationalism equal to nazism? Is all vaccine-skepticism anti-vaxx? I totally agree that debate almost never actually changes the views of the one you are arguing with, iirc, there are studies that show the opposite is more common. (that they become more firm in their views) However, debates are seldom held in private, onlookers are far more likely to be subject to positive influence if they do not have a horse in that race. And I do believe that if debates are allowed, the majority of debates will be won by the positive influence, meaning the positive influence will be the dominant one in society. And regarding the escalation of violence that "Trump supporters and QAnons" have been part of, what came first, the violence or the censorship? I believe that censorship often leads to violence, because what alternate conflict resolution channels do you leave available when debate is stifled?