You can’t be non-censorious and also take down hate speech, if that’s what you mean by “takes hate speech seriously”.

You’re either a censor or you’re not. If you want a censored platform, say it; if you want an uncensored site, say that.

The thing is, any service that offers a "censorship-free" alternative will instantly attract mostly by those whose content is garbage for everyone else: usually it's pedophiles until the operators get a couple not-so-nice letters or a police raid and then at least introduce modest moderation, and then come Nazis, antisemites and conspiracy myth peddlers.

And said hate peddlers then complain that they don't have the reach they enjoyed on Twitter, Youtube and Facebook... well d'oh. Turns out one who is not a Nazi, a journalist reporting about them, or an antifa activist collecting information wants to spend their free time on a platform dominated by Nazis.

> usually it's pedophiles until the operators get a couple not-so-nice letters or a police raid and then at least introduce modest moderation

You're describing illegal content. Nobody is objecting to taking that down. Everyone else is talking about censoring legal content.

Last time I checked, Voat was a bunch of people letting the n-word rip in every comment like they're 10yo and discovered a bad word for the first time.

There was very little sign of intelligence. I had no urge to go back.

Hitler salutes, calling for gassing Jews, or "out with migrants" have been illegal in Germany since 1945 - for obvious reasons, one might add. That is illegal content under German laws, but "muh free speech!!!11" for Americans.

Let me clarify: by "illegal", I meant "illegal in the jurisdiction where it's being hosted", not "illegal anywhere on the planet".