So we're back to step 1. Hate speech is only based on immutable characteristics? There's no issue if you target people based on clothes, wealth, sports team, political affiliation, etc? The definition you quoted included religion so was that incorrect?

Like I said last time you asked this: I certainly think it's wrong/rude, but I also don't think there's any news to remove such speech, as the negative impact is minimal.

You didn't answer the question last time either. Is it, or is it not, hate speech?

Your quoted definition includes religion. You've contradicted yourself again by saying it's only immutable characteristics. So which is it?

You didn't ask if they were hate speech, you asked if they were okay. I answered the question you asked, twice. No they're not hate speech.

Personally I could go either way on religion falling under the hate speech/immutable characteristic category. I see good arguments in both directions.

To humor you, we'll say that yes, it's immutable and therefore protected, since belief in a higher diety is axiomatic.

Great, then Google is not removing hate speech because 共匪 is not an immutable characteristic. Instead they're censoring US citizens on a US property to appease a foreign authoritarian nation which would never let its own people have such freedom.

That's an interesting theory. But I don't think it holds up under deeper analysis. Specifically, there are lots of other phrases, including some that praise the CCP directly that are also removed.

Given this additional context, it seems much more likely that the real answer is something like "a bunch of spambots posted messages about communism in Chinese, and as a spam-prevention measure, certain strings were added to a list of auto-removed strings."