Can you fight hatred with hatred? Even if you end up killing those you hated, you'll still be worse off because the whole acting out against others was premised on others being responsible for the hatred you feel, which is false, the hatred is a projection of your own inner turmoil, so you'd still be hateful, and now you've sown the seed of hate yourself. Repeat until convinced. To use your example, it's like fighting fire by putting your hair on fire. It kind of helps, but only in a very perverted sense.
Yes, this is probably a bad idea, on the other hand the "paradox of tolerance" is a thing. (Note that it should still apply to actions rather than ideas.)
“Paradox of tolerance” is only a thing that someone once argued that it existed and people misrepresented it in that cartoon that is usually what anybody thinks they know about the original utterance. Like in this thread it’s also usually uttered as some sort of axiom rather than an idea up for debate.
I don't even know what cartoon you're talking about. I was referring to :
“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
― Karl Raimund Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
----
But anyway, IMHO it's not for websites to police free speech, that's what the judiciary is for.
I'm not sure whether I consider the new EU terrorist content regulation to be good or bad, it's going to depend on what "competent authority" giving the removal orders means.
The "specific measures to protect [...] against dissemination to the public of terrorist content" just seem like usual moderation tools, but again, it's left to be seen what is going to happen in practice.
