Is the present alternative, where sites aren't allowed to keep existing (or, assuming they find a new host, "have to switch hosts a few times") after encouraging three ethnic massacres, really worse? Is that specific line really going too far?
It's not like this is the first line to be painted about what's allowed on the internet. There are already lines drawn prohibiting hosting child porn and selling illegal drugs online. Neither of those lines caused us to slip down a slope to an overly-censored internet.
And we are already coming to a more censored internet. Sex work was forbidden with FOSTA. Many mainstream conservative opinions are censored. Opinions which Obama had when president are now considered hate speech and censored. There is more and more censorship.