Seems to me that your view descends from an opinion that naturally, a certain amount or kind of censorship is required. Correct me if I'm wrong: it sounds like what you're saying is "I believe measures should be taken to reduce the number of members from a particular group that choose to use the platform's capacity for public communication from said platform".

Internet powerhouses — Google, Reddit, Facebook — disagree with your view. It's not to say that they're necessarily right or that you're necessarily wrong: the majority of an opinion has never been a reliable measure of its veracity on its own. I do believe, however, that they may have a point you're not acknowledging in your argument.

The Internet has always been a manifestation of the idea of Freedom upon which the US mentality rests. Though controlled in a number of ways, it still professes far more freedom in terms of what one can do without repercussions within it. This includes both the good faith conduct (like arguing for human rights in a country that's known for revoking them), the bad faith conduct (like hate speech) and anything in between (like posting documents online that prove malevolent US activity on the foreign soil that led to innocent civilians being dead).

With that kind of freedom, you're certain to get some sort of an ill conduct. A place where one could post about their feelings anonymously is also a place where a troll can run rampant. It's the price you pay for being free of consequence: some people would choose to do bad things, not because they're evil, but because they're human.

In the real world, this shit would not bide well for anyone involved, because in the real world, you can feel the consequences quite well — and even then, people still kill other people.

But the Internet? Sure, it has effect on the real world, and I hope you don't catch my tone as one of indifference. Things online can make or break you. Communication here is the ultimate Rorschach test: one tends to imbue the words they encounter with their own preferences and biases. But it's also a place where something good can be done with the freedom: expose fraud, help find the cure, inform others of injustice...

Whether the good is worth the bad is another question. I don't think the question is as simple as "Shall we ban the Nazis?". Sure, they can ban you from their lot, and you can do the same to them. Maybe, by saying "We are not to judge", the powerhouses of the Internet make a good point.

(though, to be fair, Reddit and Google are both known to be selective about what they choose not to judge: the waves of hatred subreddit bans and the recent "ad-friendly" YouTube debacle are both proof. it's a known point that's been made before, here as well, by people far more educated and eloquent than myself. I just want to show that there may be some merit to the other side — something other than "They're no-gooders who can't get their screws straight")