The problem with this "Nazi" thing is not that people believe in hateful and divisive ideologies, but that it's not illegal to be stupid, racist, sexist, hateful, etc. Not in the U.S. anyway. In Germany, being a holocaust-denier is in fact illegal. I'm guessing that self-identified Nazis won't fare too well either on a German-run social media platform, but there are reasonable sensitivities there.
After all, theists are allowed on Twitter. That doesn't mean every theist is stupid or racist or sexist, but the BIBLE sure AF is. Last I checked, worshipping a being which one thinks killed the world (but for Noah and family) is not illegal, but it's asinine to worship such a being (from the vantage point of most religious skeptics, anyway). Even though the story is false, believers are so-named for a reason. They actually believe this, in whole or in part.
'Hate speech' is a VERY slippery slope and we've been dealing with this for years.
For Twitter, the Nazi who believes in crazy racist ideology is no different than someone who believes in hateful religious fiction, even if both haven't actually *carred out* said edicts or hate. Suffer not a witch to live. I don't see theists killing witches.......well not anymore. Sometimes these people DO act though, because belief informs behavior. Should Twitter try to control for this like the Minority Report pre-crime division?
Yet, this same phenomenon, mob rule, is busy trying to destroy Elon—personally and professionally. Wouldn't some nutter possibly be motivated to act with the perceived 'support' of the mob? This is one of the dangers of what's happening. I really hope Elon has great security because I really worry about his safety, and adding to the hate and baying of the mob is not helping. Some have been moved to the worst behaviors by less.
Using the legal standard is a good starting point for the same reason that the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), both religious organizations with hateful ideology, can have a peaceful assembly which is protected by the U.S. First Amendment. Of course most of us wouldn't agree with such nonsense, but they have the right to their dumb ideas....just like nominal theists do. Or BLM. Or Antifa. Or radical gender feminists (not the same as equity). Or a Flat-Earther anti-vaxxer. Or people who think astrology is settled science.
Terms of Service of course can veer from our peculiar 1A standards which guide a U.S. company, but if we're going to give everyone a voice then using a legal standard is a good starting point. Don't like someone's speech? Mute them. After all, the world is FULL of bad ideas, and some of them are in book form for free in every hotel room. Or, you might happen across them on Twitter. Do we need Twitter to vet ideas before we get a chance to follow or mute (or simply ignore) someone on our own?
Even when someone has a nominal worldview that doesn't including obvious craziness, I might mute them simply because they add apostrophes to plural words, but that's me.
P.S. Band Name Idea:
The Spurious Apostrophe's
