I don't need to write paragraphs, not sure why you feel entitled to that.
Nuance requires more words, I go into most statements thinking of what examples invalidate my point and try to include them and carve through the point to show where I stand between them. It doesn't help anyone to run from inconvenient truths or appear so partisan that you fully support the worst things someone's done, it especially doesn't help yourself.
We have quite a lot in common, but I just can't agree with you that the government of Nazi Germany didn't have eerily similar tactics to those of organizations like Antifa and unfortunately BLM.
Hindsight is 20/20, but history of a decade is taught in an hour. Antifa isn't an organization, BLM is, that's why it's so dumb to have them on a terrorist list, there's no members that aren't better labeled by another name. Basically everyone claiming to be representative of Antifa is a right winger missing the point of the name and trying to show they're violent and evil, like all of those facebook and twitter posts by Antifa_US which was linked to white supremacists later, after Trump retweeted them.
BLM might have gotten too big for its britches, because it's now hard for them to distance themselves from people who do things explicitly against how they require their members to behave during protests. Just like police they have no idea who these perpetrators are. You can only look at their requirements before protests to judge their organization and they're pretty peace-oriented if you can consider inconvenience peaceful.
Your statement about Alex Jones being censored says a lot. You're missing the point of it all. It's either all or nothing when it comes to freedom of speech. The moment you give someone the ability to choose what to censor, it becomes political and biased.
I would say the line should be drawn under the same scrutiny of harassment in a civil court. If Alex Jones had said everything he did about random children who survived school shootings but instead had said it about Tom Hanks, then there's far less of an issue. The line should also be drawn when the whole point of the show is to get you scared about fluoride in the water and then sell you water filters. A left wing equivalent would still be just as wrong, but I don't know of any. Maybe there's an example you have. Episodes where Alex Jones just said mundane stuff like, "I'll eat your ***" aren't the problem if that makes it more clear it's not about him specifically. Also what he said about gay frogs was pretty funny because there's some modicum of truth to it like all good conspiracy theories, they just aren't "putting it in the water" on purpose. It's caused by people peeing after taking antidepressants lol. Fluoxetine affects frog *** drive, so it's more like it's making the frogs asexual. Episodes like that are also not really problematic enough to discourage his free speech, despite it being misinformation.
One thing that nobody seems to really understand about this though is that private companies can choose what happens on their platforms and like cancel culture, if your presence hinges on it then they'll lose customers. So what it sounds like when a bunch of conservatives complain about Youtube "killing their freedom of speech" by removing videos off their own servers is more like "Timmy's mom kicked me out of their home for calling her a ****, my freedom of speech has been violated." Free speech doesn't exist on Youtube.