This is a terrible decision. The issue at hand is that very few actual "extremists" are ever affected by decisions such as this, instead those targeted end up being those who simply do not agree with the "woke" left.
There are very few things that cause more division and hatred than creating labels such as "marginalized" and "inequality" to describe people who are put into groups based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. because of the generalized assumption that, because an individual belongs to one or more of those groups, they are automatically in "need" of the "help" from the progressive left. This entirely removes the element of personal responsibility for your own actions, instead defaulting to a rather ignorant assumption that the position one holds in society, be it social or economic, is entirely based on the fact that they are part of some marginalized group. Facts do NOT support this, not at all.
The ADL and SPLC both want you to believe that there has been a significant increase in hate crimes over the last ten years. This is not correct. The rise is entirely based on a broadened definition of what constitutes a "hate crime" by those groups. The numbers for what WERE considered hate crimes have actually gone down. But by generalizing the definition, and including such things as domestic squabbles between members of the LBGTetc. community as "hate crimes" (even when it is two of the same group fighting one another, yes the SPLC has done this, multiple times), it gives the incorrect impression that there are more hate crimes than ever. Ask yourself something: to admit that hate crimes are on the decline, does this give groups like the ADL and SPLC more, or less power? Is there as much of a need for said groups when hate crime goes down significantly? There is a direct corelation between reduction in hate crime and reduction in overall donations to these companies. Think about that for a moment.
This is why it was important for SCOTUS to uphold ALL speed as free speech, and why it is important for "neutral service providers" to remain NEUTRAL, and not get into these political squabbles. You can try and maintain the image that you are merely "fighting hate", but when the qualification for "hate speech" are constantly twisted around and convoluted by those who simply wish to silence any opposing viewpoints, the unfair nature of "fighting inequality" by a neutral service provider becomes VERY shady.
Reverse your decision on this, you need to remain neutral and do NOT bow down to the loud progressive left, there aren't nearly as many of them out there as you think.
