The problem is one of the platforms' own making, because they want the legal protection of being a platform in addition to the commercial benefits of being a publisher. This has been allowed to happen despite the fact that such aggressive "content curation" clearly makes the likes of Twitter and Youtube publishers. That should come at the cost of safe harbor protections. A platform's only duty, with regard to the policing of speech, is in cases of copyright violation and court orders; as you can imagine, adherence to the law would make it difficult to control political narratives and sell laundry detergent ad space. The "almost" aspect is more to do with ambiguities in the laws themselves, as well as untested and conflicting international laws.

The solution is very simple: enforce the law, force the choice between platform and publisher. If there truly is a need to curtail free speech on a legally protected platform - pass a law making that speech illegal. I'd be curious to see how many heads explode when people learn that "hate speech" is not illegal - and couldn't be made so in the US without hilarious consequences.

I'd rather not name the individual in Canada that was targeting women, but I will say this: some biologically born men have found an interesting loophole in both the political arguments and legal protections afforded on the basis of class and identity. Some lesbians were unimpressed with the idea that they had a moral obligation to grant equal sexual preference to both biologically born women and biologically born men who declared themselves to be women. This is something that has been going on for a while now, and nobody is really allowed to talk about it - because "hate speech".