"hate speech" is a made up word and neither illegal or "bad". You're applauding a rebranded social score and a secondary justice system.
Most words and phrases were made up, at some point. "Hate speech" still has a coherent meaning.
> and neither illegal
Nobody said it was illegal. YouTube is free to ban content creators that haven't broken the law. You agree to those terms when you use the site.
> or "bad"
I understand that the phrase "hate speech" confuses you. But these content creators openly advocate white supremacism. If you don't think that is "bad" I think you should take a deep look inward.
> You're applauding
Yes.
> a rebranded social score
No. YouTube is not assigning a "social score" - they are refusing to pay web hosting fees for racists. That has no effect on any other aspect of these people's lives - their ability to find jobs, make friends, start businesses, etc. is unaffected.
> and a secondary justice system
The comparison of YouTube consequences to the justice system is laughable. YouTube is saying "host your content elsewhere, there are lots of options." The justice system hands down things like forced confinement and the death penalty. There is really no comparison.
- Pro-Life: You don't respect women's bodily autonomy, because you believe women are "less-than".
- Pro-Choice: You don't respect the fetus's right to life, because you believe pre-birth infants are "less-than".
- Pro-War: You don't respect the sacrifices of American troop or those who died on 9/11, because you believe privileged Westerners are "less-than".
- Anti-War: You don't respect the lives of civilians who die in drone strikes, because you believe Muslims are "less-than".
Lately, I've been cross-referencing the language of dehumanization with how uncontroversial it is to express an opinion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "necessary evils". And perhaps they were (I've heard the arguments and I'm aware of the historical complexity); yet most Americans suffer little consternation to disregard the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, in a way that would be horrifying if it was (a) present day, and/or (b) the actions of some out-group rather than our own heroic Nazi-fighting forces.
All that said: I think it's also pretty naive to pretend that emotionally inflammatory rhetoric doesn't exist, or is inconsequential. Lately I've been thinking about a different category: while "hate speech" is shunned in most corners of polite society, our moral tribes largely tolerate (if not encourage) "fear speech": "[Trump / Antifa] is coming to get you". Each side's fear exacerbates the other in a positive feedback loop, akin to the Cycle of Violence.