Yes uncensored sites will have distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content.
That is a GOOD thing, and a FEATURE not a deterrent.
You do not defeat bad ideas, and repugnant ideologies with suppression of speech. Sorry it does not work that way no matter how much the Authoritarian Left and the Authoritarian Right would love it to
You don't defeat bad ideas by promoting them either; you defeat them with shame, i.e. consequences for being willfully ignorant or acting like a jackass. But the internet rarely delivers meaningful feedback to the folks that craft this type of "distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content."
Now, you might be the sort of person that would choose to live with a group of sadistic trolls for the edification that might result. I suspect most humans would react badly to that type of environment; our psychology is not well adapted to a constant barrage of persuasive deception and emotional manipulation.
Personally, I hope this latest crop of trashtube sites is driven offline and into bankruptcy; the sooner, the better.
You can't defeat bad ideas with shaming; shaming means you don't have an argument and are approaching the topic as a belief. You cannot persuade others with your beliefs.
You can defeat ideas only with better, well argumented ideas.
I used to believe that as well. But it seems that even a "well argumented" idea can get very little traction unless the circumstances are right, i.e. your interlocutor doesn't care much about the topic. There was some study about this a little bit ago, where pointing out problems with an erroneous but established "fact" just caused people to dig further into their position, even after the "fact" their position was supposedly based on was proved to be completely and irredeemably false.
This is the problem with letting idiots and hucksters push out garbage "facts" - they build communities that are uninterested in counter-arguments. It doesn't even matter if the "facts" are somehow eventually refuted, because the attitudes informed by them have already hardened. And, the only way I can think of to prevent those idiots and hucksters from being so effective is to introduce some kind of social restraint - thus, shame.
The point was not "there are repugnant ideas". The point was "the first thing shown to me, on the front page, are repugnant ideas". Big difference.
Free alternative sites always seem to end up being just, or at least mainly, a place for hosting extremists. call it the voat effect if you will.
And to be clear, I do think that having that kind of content being offered a platform is not, at all, good. But I don't think you need to agree with that to agree with the specific point I was making.
And the reason those sites will never see mainstream success is because the selection bias is too strong. They all are inherently seeded by highly disproportionate numbers of users that are outcasts from other services, and that sets the tone of the community from the start.
That is a GOOD thing, and a FEATURE not a deterrent.
You do not defeat bad ideas, and repugnant ideologies with suppression of speech. Sorry it does not work that way no matter how much the Authoritarian Left and the Authoritarian Right would love it to