It's a shame because the thing that kills alternative platforms is getting flooded with racists to the point that they drive everyone else out.

A lot of "free speech" platforms box themselves into a corner by declaring themselves "free speech" platforms while intending that to mean they won't ban users for mild wrongthink, but then white supremacists show up, and if they get banned then they start causing a massive shitstorm over the fact that the platform isn't truly supporting free speech. Then they drive out all the normal people who don't want to be associated with them and the platform is forced to shutdown.

Then you have morons like Tim Pool who will endlessly attack "free speech" platforms if they ban white supremacists.

Oh right, so you were talking about the content, that's not what I understood under "frontend". Thanks for clearing it up.

I don't have any experience with the platform, so I'm not in a position to judge their decisions, but it's always tricky when you present yourself as censor free. There's things you obviously don't want on your service, but if it falls within the legal realm, it is no longer a matter of "will we block Nazi material" but whether from that point onward you start taking a moral and political stance.

Things get incredibly tricky and cumbersome if you choose that route, not just from an administrative perspective but also technically. I can understand why the people who operate the platform would prefer to primarily use legality as a deciding factor, as not every ideological issue that you open yourself up to if you take the other route is as straightforward as fascism.