But after reading the thread I see the intended public
That seems an oddly teleological argument; judging the intention of a speaker by extrapolating from the response of a single person who replies to them enables drawing almost any conclusion you want.
Given that you've commented to my post, isn't that like saying you are my intended audience - despite my having no way to know you were going to create a HN account yesterday?
The problem free speech message boards will always have is that the only people who seem to be genuinely motivated to post on free speech platforms are people who can't get on normal platforms. As a result free speech platforms almost always end up dominated by extremists and racists. Partly because they're the ones with the biggest motivation to use the platforms, but partly because their use of the platform drives away more moderate users. Plenty of people believe you have a right to free speech but also believe in their own right not to hang around and listen to you.
'Unsavory' is an interesting way to describe speech that instructs, encourages, or incites the commission of murder, which has a terminal effect on the speech of the people who die and and a chilling effect on the speech of those around them.
Logically, it would appear that murder is the ultimate form of censorship, by not merely constraining speech but eliminating its very possibility. Perhaps you could articulate how you resolve this philosophical conundrum?
That seems an oddly teleological argument; judging the intention of a speaker by extrapolating from the response of a single person who replies to them enables drawing almost any conclusion you want.
Given that you've commented to my post, isn't that like saying you are my intended audience - despite my having no way to know you were going to create a HN account yesterday?