=====
Robert Caro - Lyndon B. Johnson series & The Power Broker
S.C Gwynne - Empire of the Summer Moon
Nassim Nicholas Taleb - Black Swan & Antifragile
Graham Hancock - America Before
Jared Diamond - Guns, Germs and Steel
Safi Bahcall - Loonshots
First off, there is a very strong axiom here that "the masses" are extremely malleable and incapable of critical thinking. So, just like with children, it's the responsibility of the "influencer" to control the audience "properly". This is a very strong axiom that, while I personally agree with it, I'm guessing most people wouldn't when presented explicitly. This axiom has far reaching consequences for Free Speech as Free Speech only works when personal responsibility is a given. This is a classic "you can't have it both ways" situation.
But assuming this axiom and its implications (that people are not 100% responsible for their actions), the next question is how much of the external responsibility does the metaphorical printing press have? Is it ok for my OS to allow me to type "kill jews"? Is it ok for your browser to render said text? Should Microsoft censor the content of Word documents so they can't be used to spread hate speech? (this is not so far fetched: Photoshop blocks attempts to edit images of money bills for fear of being a tool for counterfeiting) Is it ok for a CDN (like Cloudflare) to decline services to websites based on their content (like 8chan and Daily Stormer)? If yes, must they decline and actively police the content of all "19 million Internet properties that use Cloudflare's service"? Should Google not deliver emails based on their content? etc.
How much do we want Facebook/Twitter to bare responsibility for the content of users and advertisers and thus actively censor based on their own criteria? What should be this criteria be?
Here is where this line of doesn't work too well with what Baron Cohen is saying: Facebook/Twitter/etc are centralized publishers. He is arguing they are equivalent to Random House, NBC, or TIME. If a hate group owns its own printing press, it's not the press' fault because they are a publisher of the organization. But if Random House prints and publishes works of a fringe group, do you think there would be push back? Why are they giving this group legitimacy? It legitimizes them if they are published by the same entity as works of literature. Sacha is saying that by allowing hate groups and non-hate groups the same publishing capability, Facebook is legitimizing them.