[x5n1]

> What's the logical conclusion of that?

Private companies should serve their shareholders. They should draft a policy saying that they don't get involved in content moderation issues as a matter of policy. That's good business and good for speech. If disgruntled people want to do something about it, they can take it up with the legal system.

> Is it good business? Or is it better business to have a clear policy over what is and is not allowed, and then enforce that?

It is not possible to have a clear policy when moderating content because the world is a diverse place with diverse opinions. Where would you begin? Are Muhammad cartoons banned?

[nine_k]

Let's note that it's perfectly fine for a private company to limit their terms of service and reserve a right to stop hosting "distasteful content". It just needs to be declared openly in TOS. If it were so, probably voat won't choose them.

[s73v3r]

Is it good business? Or is it better business to have a clear policy over what is and is not allowed, and then enforce that?