The worst you have on the left is some anti vaxxers that's about it.  Also the far left never mixes their craziness with religion but on the far right it is common that the craziest members are also religious and they mix their religion with their craziness.  That is why Alex Jones is on whole other level of crazy not only is a regular nut he is also a religious nut.

what my comment was meant to say is, it's not true that the majority of the people who are disagreeing with you, or leftist/liberal white men in general, support hate against them self.

Anybody on the left who calls anybody leaning right as a bigot/Nazi/fascist are among the worst of the left. Its a big reason why democrats aren't being taken seriously by many. Its poisoning the well, you spin your opponents as the worst type of people and morons who want to be apart of cause believe it. Groups like Antifa put themselves as the moral superior by spinning all their opponents as bigots so anything they do is okay because their enemies are Nazis.

You don't need to be religious to be crazy, like the guy who shot at republican baseball game wasn't religiously motivated. Or people who've been motivated by BLM to kill police officers. Also, a lot of people on the left are religious. You've ever been around Hispanics and blacks? They're arguably just as or more religious than whites. I've seen them bitch about gays while complaining about social injustice, its kinda funny.

Yep, people with white guilty are funny.

I guess these are far right http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237217&page=1

Antifa is a fringe group and its not worse then any of the fringe groups on the right like the KKK and other hate groups.  At one point the KKK actually had substantial political power in the US especially in the deep south.  Plus they are far worse Antifa was and is.  Pretty much all the lynchings that took place in the US either was done by KKK members or was caused by KKK involvement. Also the worse case of domestic terrorism in the US the OKC bombing was done by a right winger.

That's interesting.

Regarding "they don't actually change the views of the people they are pushed on", I first of all have to say I like how you made it sound like I'm supposed to feel empathy  for a person who wouldn't want to serve someone food because of the color of their skin.

Secondly, no they don't change their views. They 'only' protect people from being the target of someone acting on those views.
I'm sure a jail sentences doesn't change someone's 'view' when it comes to wanting to punch me in the face for not letting them cut in line at the supermarket, but it sure is nice that it would usually deter them from doing so.

Both the US or EU are big enough that any laws they impose on the internet will affect the world.

Any laws passed in the United States must meet US constitutional muster, regardless of what the EU does or doesn't do. And the EU is more likely to approve of social media platforms banning people like Jones than the US does. Remember, hate speech does exist under the laws of the EU.

 The constitution can be amended and new laws made.

It takes the consent of 38 states to amend the Constitution. The Northeast corridor alone (VA to ME) has enough states to ensure that this amendment never gets off the ground. Then throw in Illinois, possibly Minnesota, and at least half of the West Coast. I also think that even in Middle America, a lot of people aren't going to be okay with the idea of giving the federal government that much power to regulate speech.

And before it comes to a vote before the states, a proposed amendment either be passed in Congress by a two-thirds majority in both houses (this is not subject to the "nuclear option" as it is prescribed in Article V) or through a constitutional convention convened by at least 34 states. There's a reason why the Constitution was only amended 27 times in the country's history, and 10 of those times were three years after the Constitution itself was ratified. One of the subsequent 17 amendments was written to void a previous amendment that imposed more restrictions on freedom and turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.

The courts have been pretty consistent in striking down laws passed by the government aimed at restricting what platform owners can and can't do to regulate their operations.

I'm making an argument for freedom of speech laws to be extended to political speech on social media. The internet and social media didn't exist then but if it did, it would have been included under what's covered  with free speech especially with political speech. 

Free speech as defined in the United States Constitution applies ONLY to free speech restrictions imposed to the government. Private owners are free to impose their own restrictions and are not subject to the First Amendment You can dress up in Klan robes and wave the Stars and Bars in the city park, but you damn sure can't do it on my property. On private property, you have no right to free speech, and I can ask you to leave at any time. Refusal to leave on your part when told exposes you to criminal charges. In cyberspace, servers paid for and owned by a platform are the private property of the owner, and they can decide who does and doesn't get to use them. The courts have generally sided with private individuals over the government. True free speech (i.e. government) issues aside, the courts will be loath to make any rulings that interfere with property rights or the rights of employers to regulate their workplaces internally through rules of conduct. Even previously assumed restrictions on free speech, like obscenity and fighting words, have been weakened as the Courts find that those laws fail to pass Constitutional muster. The Comstock Laws, for instance, fell like dominoes once they were challenged in the courts. The only reason they stood so long was because few people were willing to challenge them.

The courts have also ruled that the FCC has no authority over the Internet.

So we have free speech on the Internet. Free speech under US law not the right to say what you want on a platform that is neither your property nor the government's without repercussions imposed by the entity that owns the platform.  It is the right to say what you want without being arrested or having your property confiscated by the government. Nothing less... but nothing more. A private individual restricting what is said on his property is not subject to state action.

The first amendment was created because we believe in freedom of speech as a principal and any laws created to protect it should be adapted to what's happening in the present.

The 1A protects freedom of speech by tying the government's hands. It doesn't give you a right to commandeer someone else's platform for your free speech. As far as the Constitution is concerned, giving a speech in a park or from your own home without being arrested is the definition of freedom of speech. The founders were strong proponents of property rights... and strong opponents of government regulation of speech, though they weren't always consistent on that.

Alot of businesses were regulated because they became integral to society. It has nothing to do with a monopoly in the way you mean that. They are important in how we communicate with everyone worldwide and recreating another social media that widely used or big is near impossible.

Business regulations are still subject to the Constitution. If the Constitution says the government may not regulate something, the government may not regulate something.  Regulating FB or Youtube as a utility gives the government control over what is said or not said on those platforms, and that is strongly forbidden by the First Amendment. Government-forced free speech is not free speech.

It will be much easier to create a competitive market alternative to FB, Youtube, or Apple than it will be to get 38 states to pass an amendment that empowers the government to forcibly regulate Facebook's right to govern its property, especially since FB is so strongly protected by the 1A.

I disagree with you on everything.

You're welcome to do so, of course, but your disagreement or agreement does not change the facts of the situation.