Social media have been called upon to censor
hate speech and they've tried to do so,
but with no more success than any other attempt
at censoring hate speech by governments
throughout history and around the world.
Hate speech is not a recognized legal concept
in the United States,
which is why I use the air quote.
Many people are surprised to learn that the
first amendment only applies to government.
I understand the moral satisfaction of calling
for suppressing ideas that we hate,
but experience shows that that censorship
does more harm than good.
Countries around the world, including comparable
democratic countries in Europe, Canada, Australia,
and so forth have been censoring hate speech
for several decades.
Not surprisingly, a very large coalition of
civil liberties and civil rights organizations
have been complaining to Facebook for years
that it has punished as hate speech – their
advocacy of equality.
For example, the Black Lives Matter movement
on behalf of the pipeline protestors.
A more effective response to any idea we hate,
or consider hateful or dangerous
is not to silence it, but to refute it, to explain why.
A compassionate approach is much more effective
than an angry, hostile demonizing approach.
What is the lesser of two evils?
Would we rather trust ourselves 
and our fellow citizens
to ignore and rebut messages that are hateful
or would we rather trust either government
officials or powerful corporate entities to
take those decisions away from us?
I'd say the lesser of two evils is making
our own decisions.
