Why do you think it's unmoderated? I saw this same statement in another comment and pulled up their guidelines: https://gab.com/about/guidelines. Essentially they aim to moderate according to US law
That's my point. Minimally-moderated free speech zones always seem to go septic almost immediately.
Censorship can be (and in the most heinous cases, is) compelled by a government, and can even arguably serve the public good, as is often argued with hate speech laws, or (less controversially) with laws against libel and slander. But as far as free speech is concerned, all censorship is equally dangerous.
It's hypocrisy for defenders of Gab to complain about platform owners and businesses de-platforming them, while accepting Gab doing the same.
>Yes. Abridgement of speech in any form is censorship.
That wasn't the question asked.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
The question was whether the other examples were compelled by government law. That puts them in a different category. Unless you would like to argue that the other censorship was performed to keep the organizers out of prison, your argument falls flat.