I'm aware of what you're advocating because you repeat it so often. I have no objection to your points about discoverability (indeed I mentioned else where that sufficiently obnoxious tweets could be highlighted as ban-worthy, rather than simply being removed - although this wouldn't mitigate the harm done by posting slurs etc.

It's a little odd to me that you contemplate hypotheticals like 'perceiving the lack of response as tacit approval.' It's not that this is incorrect, but that you're overlooking evidence of the alternative: when platforms like Twitter or FB leave posts up (to gather both argument and support) but attach some sort of note saying 'this post might be disinformation' or words to that effect.

That is what you are asking for, no? A clear signal that the social media post is disfavored by the platform operator in some way, such that the author is notified and given some context, and so is everyone else. I would appreciate if you would clarify whether or not this meets your desired standard of transparency.

The reason I bring this up is that when this approach is applied, authors of the controversial posts tend to hate it and still scream that they're being censored by being publicly shamed, or having words inserted into their social media post by the platform operator (notwithstanding the extremely obvious distinction.. Twitter has gone farther again by allowing users to add meta-commentary in the form of notes (previously birdwatch), but on controversial topics said notes are often railed against by the original author or the subject of meta-controversy by people trying to spam the note system with negative characterizations of the notes themselves.

If you're going to make transparency of moderation into your political cause (and you very much seem to approach it this way), then I think you should go all the way and address the questions of why people are not happy even when they get what you are advocating for, and just pivot to a slightly different variation of the same argument about how they're being censored and it's a terrible injustice etc.

Incidentally the definition in your 2nd link is not from Nadine Strossen; it's just a restatement of the prevailing legal standard for incitement (from Brandenburg v. Ohio) and indeed seems to be offered as such in the text. Like the 'true threat' doctrine, this definition is being interpreted in increasingly elastic fashion in our era of instantaneous mass communication.

I'm familiar with Strossen's book but also consider it to be written from a comfortable suite in an ivory tower. Like many well-intentioned idealists, she acknowledges the possibility of violence but argues that it must be met by reasoned debate and nonviolent resistance. I reject this posture, because it basically says people who are the target of violence should accept their role as punching bugs (or targets of gunfire) in exchange for the possibility of moving the conscience of elites who review circumstances, form policy, render decisions, and recognize peers (eg accepting or rejecting the validity of other states). In this mode of argument, willingness to passively sacrifice oneself is the threshold of acceptability - becoming famous for your advocacy and then dying for it like Christ, King, or Gandhi is the way to go. And conveniently, once people are dead they can be cited as moral exemplars without the troubling possibility of them reappearing and critiquing subsequent outcomes.

Oddly, I don't see Strossen or her peers throwing themselves in front of violent mobs in an attempt to bring them to moral clarity. Having at various times been arrested, attacked, beaten by a mob, and beaten by cops while engaged in wholly non-violent political activity, I do not give much weight to pure idealism that isn't grounded in cold hard reality.

This brings me back to your first link, which complains about transgender extremism and was ironically published on the first of April this year. Just in the last three weeks, we've seen a mass shooting at an LGBT club leaving 5 dead and a further 18 injured (Colorado Springs); multiple militant groups, openly armed, demonstrating against a drag queen story hour event while police looked the other way (Columbus, Ohio); well-organized attacks on electrical substations that left a whole county without power for days and happened to coincide with a drag show in the county seat (Moore County, North Carolina).

Now, my strategic assessment is that opposition to drag shows is often a convenient excuse for militant organizing and action, and if all LGBT people magically teleported away to Planet Fabulous tomorrow, the militant organizing and action would quickly pivot to some other scapegoat.

But please, don't waste my time with links about 'transgender extremism' and free speech issues unless you are willing to address the fact that those who oppose the acceptance and freedoms of LGBT folk are themselves engaged in the suppression of free speech and indeed life. I have yet to see any of the conservative/libertarian champions of free speech address the abundant right-wing attacks upon it, probably because they're scared of their own side.

And by address, I don't mean dismissing it with a truism like 'violence is illegal of course.' Rather, try providing evidence of how your preferred approach would mitigate actual and ongoing harms, and why havens of largely unrestricted speech (eg parts of 4chan) are not utopias of thoughtful discussion but rather cesspools of bigotry that celebrate and incite violence as a means to drown out discussion. It's hard for me to take you seriously when the issue you complain about at such length involves so little hardship.