This is an impossible task. My opinion is that Google should support its employees and deliberately position itself against the right. No matter how much ground you concede to them, they're going to act in bad faith anyway, so why listen to them at all?
Ah yes, let's generalize ~50% of the country as bigots. That surely will lead to quality discussion.
Where do you draw the line at bigotry and perversion?
Homosexuality, transexuals, polyamory, eating meat, necrophilia, cannibalism, bestiality, pedophilia?
There's people who non-ironically believe that each of the above is no worse than any of the others and should be treated as such. Unless you take a live and let live approach that I have never met anyone in real life admit to you will want at least some of those criminalized.
Will you, in your capacity as a moderator for one of the most influential forums on the internet, actively care about justice, or will you just protect the status quo? Pick a side.
(Keep in mind that Scott Alexander made the exact same mistake of trying to be neutral rather than choosing to be on the side of justice. Now his blog is overrun by fascist trolls. Hacker News is not far behind.)
We're not trying to be neutral in the sense you describe. I agree that it's impossible, that everything is ultimately political or at least connected to politics by one or two hops, and so on. But this is a hard problem with no easy answers—actually with no answers. I certainly don't have one. The answer you're offering is not an answer, because picking a side and banning the other side would explode this community. It isn't just people on the banned side who would oppose such an approach; most HN users on all sides would. The rift would kill the community. What good would that do?
Another reason is that political issues are more important than most of what appears on HN. Justice is more important than Rust. Does it follow that no website dedicated to less important things has a right to exist? I don't think so. I think it's ok to have a forum dedicated to intellectual curiosity, even though justice is more important than Rust. It's fine if you disagree, but then it would be good to make clear that that is what you disagree with. So far I don't think I've ever heard anyone come out and say so. But if you do agree that it's ok to have a forum dedicated to intellectual curiosity, I think I can argue confidently that the approach we take as moderators follows from that.
> most HN users on all sides would. Such a rift would kill the community. What good would that do?
Who are you excluding today with your actions? How do you know it would kill the community? I actually don't think so — the Rust community, thriving by any metric, has very strict codes of conduct. That's because the Rust community correctly optimizes for the safety of marginalized people over political diversity.
I know plenty of people that do not participate on HN today because of moderation that cares more about tone than content. Why not ban all the fascists and welcome those people? I promise that the sky won't fall.
Yes, I disagree with the premise that HN should be "dedicated to intellectual curiosity". This forum is way too important for that. For example, getting your side project on the front page of HN can have a large material impact on your life. Too many people are excluded from that today — they simply do not feel safe participating here.
You will necessarily make some groups of people feel unsafe and excluded. This is the basic truth about large communities. The question comes down to who you're going to care about: gay people or homophobes, for example. Immigrants or nativists. People affected by the structural injustices in the tech industry, or people that proudly support the same injustices. These are all mutually exclusive choices. Choose carefully.