> but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots.
Except that it doesn't. If anything, it's a lot easier to play the "redpill normies" game when you don't even _have_ to phrase your arguments clearly and logically, because censorship gives you plausible deniability. Innuendo, Straussian irony, dog-whistling etc. etc. become the name of the game, and the most truthful, open and pro-social ideas are put at a serious disadvantage.
> A huge number of people have fallen into terrible thought patterns after being exposed to these ideas through youtubers and faux academics.
Maybe, but surely you would agree that there is a useful middle ground between sites like YT which actively promote the most outlandish and click-bait ideas (flat earth, conspiracy theories, discredited urban legends etc.) in the name of "engagement", vs. government-mandated censorship.
Except that it doesn't. If anything, it's a lot easier to play the "redpill normies" game when you don't even _have_ to phrase your arguments clearly and logically, because censorship gives you plausible deniability. Innuendo, Straussian irony, dog-whistling etc. etc. become the name of the game, and the most truthful, open and pro-social ideas are put at a serious disadvantage.
> A huge number of people have fallen into terrible thought patterns after being exposed to these ideas through youtubers and faux academics.
Maybe, but surely you would agree that there is a useful middle ground between sites like YT which actively promote the most outlandish and click-bait ideas (flat earth, conspiracy theories, discredited urban legends etc.) in the name of "engagement", vs. government-mandated censorship.