In case you hadn’t heard, tech companies still aren’t done wiping Alex Jones and Infowars from their platforms. Some of the biggest — Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google — banned his content Monday, but now even Disqus, LinkedIn, and Mailchimp have fallen in line; Twitter seems to be the only holdout.

Without defending Jones, some conservatives warned of a slippery slope in the tech companies just erasing someone from the Internet, and wouldn’t you know it: CNN published an op-ed by Rafia Zakaria arguing that the stripping of Infowars from social media platforms went a long way toward recognizing that hate speech is “a form of terrorism.”

Conservatives who felt icky defending Jones despite some of his more atrocious claims found a friend Wednesday in the form of The Weekly Standard’s Jonathan V. Last, who argued that banning Jones was a good thing and more bans would be even better.

It sounds nice, but look at how unevenly the moderators on Twitter police what is “hate speech” (like Kathleen McKinley using the psychiatric term “gender dysphoria” in a tweet about transgender troops) and what isn’t (Sarah Jeong’s tweets about hating those “groveling goblins” known as white people).

And that seems to be the major concern: who will wield the ban hammer, and will social media platforms really do it in good faith? “Tech companies shouldn’t give Jones a pass; they should get rid of the Farrakhans of the world, too,” Last writes. “The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.”

But where’s the call from the media to sanitize Louis Farrakhan from Facebook and YouTube? It looks like this outrage cycle is going to burn out in the media before midnight tonight, and Farrakhan’s still there.

In any case, Last’s argument didn’t convince many who responded:

“Sissies?” That sounds like hate speech.

This last one wasn’t inspired by Last’s piece, but we have to use it somewhere and this is as good a place as any: