You say it isn’t about censorship, then in the next sentence you talk about stopping certain kinds of speech. Stopping speech (“hate speech” or otherwise) is the very definition of censorship.
You say there must be a way to stop certain kinds of speech, but you never explain why this is. Clearly you expect everyone to agree with you, but I do not agree.
Additionally, you give a very loose definition of what should be censored. For example, the always poorly defined “hate speech”, and the addition of “and similar”
You say “we” need tools, but who is “we”?
Finally, you resort to emotive langauge such as “destroy the humanity of another”. These kind of abstract phrases serve to muddy the waters, not to provide clarity. It’s just rhetoric.
Let’s be honest here, do you really think this technology will be employed exclusively to crack down on threats of violence and terrorist recruitment? I don’t. If you give people the power to control conversation like that, it will be abused. That is simply human nature. It already happens on social media, it happens in the real world, and it’s now happening in games.
You say it is only for those who seek to cause damage, but this tool can (and will) be configured to flag up whatever the end-user wishes.