> It's not misuse if it's common usage, it's simply usage you disagree with.

Your or my personal agreement on what the definitions should be are not the problem. The meaning has changed for only some users of the words, resulting in widespread misunderstanding, I would argue resulting in further (and completely unnecessary) political polarization. Words not having shared meanings seems sub-optimal to me.

> Obviously when people say "Nazi" they don't mean "members of a 1930s political party," they're making a statement about something else

But no one knows what statement they're making because we no longer have a shared dictionary, so people resort to their imaginations.

> If you find the usage of these words confusing that's on you, not the words or the people using them.

This suggest the problem is my lack of ability to understand, when the problem is there is no longer a common definition. There are certainly multiple popular definitions, according to which political ideology you subscribe to.

> instead of wringing our hands and worrying about the poor slippery slope.

It's not me who's "wringing my hands" - I'm not promoting or supporting any policy change, you are. I'm simply asking questions.

> Deplatforming is not censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations."

Well look at that, once again our definitions don't match. Care to share the URL for the authoritative source you're using?

> You are not guaranteed an audience for your speech.

As I said: there is a distinct difference between the First Amendment and the general principle of free speech. You only have a "guarantee" to free speech in the limited context of the first amendment.

> This is irrelevant to the discussion at best and disingenuous at worst. Facebook can ban multiple kinds of content, including pro-ISIS content (and it does). White nationalism being banned is what we're discussing here.

I thought the principle behind your argument was the harm - maybe the principle is race after all?

> I believe that social media is helping incite these incidents, so I do legitimately believe the amount of people participating in hate crimes will be reduced as a result of this.

A perfectly reasonable theory, what evidence of this do you have? Are you well read on the topic, or is this just a casual opinion that sounds about right?

> Do you really think that people aren't radicalized by communities on the Internet? Communities that might exist on Facebook?

I certainly do, but I'm concerned about everything that could lead to radicalization. History is full of examples demonstrating the strange and complex behavior of individuals and civilizations. Are we over-simplifying this situation? Should we freely discuss such things with open minds?

> No discourse of value is being lost by banning white nationalism

Completely agree, but is that all there is to it? Can you think of any possible undesirable reactions (regardless of the soundness of the logic underlying the motivation) to this type of policy?

> If you want to read white nationalist speech, it still exists. This merely means you can't read it on Facebook anymore. How this is a tragedy I simply cannot understand.

The tragedy is if this further inflames emotions, "righteously" or not, and someone shoots up another church. That's what I'm worried about.

> Yes, it's so. Read the manifesto.

The link I included sure didn't make this fellow sound like just another stereotypical redneck racist as you claim, at least my understanding of that stereotype. But never mind, let's once again not bother ourselves with messy details when vague stereotypes will suffice.

>>> They believe that by removing these people from their site they might reduce incidents of these shootings. Do you think they're wrong?

>> They might be right, they might be wrong, unlike you I make no claim to know. What if they are wrong, and censorship aggravates these already mentally unbalanced people even more, driving them to organize (perhaps in the physical world) underground where it's difficult to see what they're up to or thinking? Is this worth considering when setting policy?

> No.

Well then, this well answers my "Do you care?" questions as well.

> People can (and will) do anything in response to anything; maybe white nationalist groups will make Zuck their #1 enemy over this. You can't control the actions of other people, especially crazy people, so catering your policies to them seems absurd.

If everything is random, why even bother with policies like this, or any at all?

> I don't really see many legitimate concerns arising from banning white nationalism from Facebook.

I obviously disagree, but if you believe the reaction of extremists is not worth considering, at least you're being logically consistent.

> I just don't see what's being lost here, except white nationalist content on Facebook.

If any future negative reactions (in part due to this type of policy) of extremists are excluded from consideration, you are completely correct.

> who cares?

People attending a future church service might, if there is any validity to my belief that people aren't as simplistic as you think they are. But we'll never know for sure, because like you the media seems to prefer to not bother with messy details of why people commit atrocities when a simple stereotype works (and certainly sells more papers as an added bonus).

> Make another site if you want to discuss what they deplatform.

A perfectly fitting conclusion.