The section you mention,even with all the wording you, still allows for the silencing of speech. Would rather as another poster stated have the First Amendment be the arbiter of what is allowed to said, in a political manner.
Using the N word, is forbidden under First Amendment rulings, as it is considered a fighting word, meaning, uttering it can lead to a fight, there are a few other words dubbed such, but they can be worked with, in the same manner, censored.
There is no right to either incite violence or to encourage an act of lawlessness, no matter how far or soon into the future. Outside of these three basic ideas, all other political speech should be allowed and not censored in the slightest.
Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder, so long as it stay away from encouraging harm, calling out fighting words, or promoting future injustice, it is just speech, if not Just Speech.
Platforms do not have the right to limit people’s political views, rights, or thoughts. To this end, they must serve as a means of allowing other people’s ideas free access to any and all who would seek them. Anything else is private censorship of thought, with no outlet for it. That is not a solution, it is only a time bomb, that will be ticking, till those who think such thoughts as are disapproved of, come out from under their rocks, and throw them at those who they think put them under them in the first place. It is both better and safer to allow the market place of ideas to determine what is worth thinking about than a group of techies to decide for all.