There are two more ways to deal with content we don't like. We've largely abandoned these to our great harm:

1) Get to know people in your community who hold differing opinions. We all need to be doing this more - fostering friendship over the things we have in common. This isn't easy, but the Western world used to be far better at it.

2) Engage in healthy debate, which means advocating a specific opinion in a public way -- either speech, column in your local newspaper, etc. -- with carefully researched references/sources, no ad-hominem attacks, assuming good faith and intent on the part of those who disagree, and respect for the differing opinions of others.

Imagine if every local community did (1) and (2) -- people would be a lot happier and would be less likely to hold unsupportable opinions, since even cursory research (i.e. prior to publicly arguing in favor of them) would show those opinions have no basis in reality.

There seems to be an immense body of research that shows that good ideas do not win out over bad ideas.

What's worse than a bad idea? A forced idea (or ideology) and the lack of freedom to express a contrary opinion.

The real problem isn't those who disagree with you or hold "bad ideas", it's those who would take away everyone's freedom to disagree in peace.

The idea anyone's freedom of speech is silenced because they can't say what they want through their preferred megaphone is ridiculous.

It's 100% social tenable.

You could never walk into a private bar and demand the right to hand out Nazi propaganda, solely on the merits that "well, that's where all the people are!!"

As for neutrality, there are plenty of actively neutral companies, in action, today. They're just not very popular. Because they're filled with horrible people who demand the right to say horrible things. And no one wants to hang out with those people.

Now that the market has decided horrible beings aren't entitled to anyone else's space, the horrible human beings are insisting that the big mean bullies be forced, through threat of violence, to tolerate them.

It's nonsense all the way down.

That doesn't seem to square with the progress civilization has made over the last several centuries. We no longer torture animals, treat humans as property, believe in the 'evil eye', etc.

While it might be fun to debate the specifics of those claims, let's pretend I inserted the word "always" in my statement.

I think rather than "violently" you meant to say "vehemently." If not then ignore this comment. If so then you should probably edit as the two have important differences in meaning.

I believe "violently" can have two different meanings, the first involving the use of physical force, the second meaning "strong" or "vigorous".

All my violent disagreements are the latter not the former! :)

The legal system isn't great for this as it tends to listen to the one with the most expensive lawyers, especially in the US. And companies like Google have a lot of expensive lawyers.