The problem with media platforms that market themselves as pro-free-speech is that they attract alt-right content - and their hyper-toxic followers - like a warm pile of shit attracts flies, even if that's not the intent of the platform operators.
Beyond that there are some folks with some free speech ideals but even that devolves into "anything goes" and they turn a blind eye to the results because it is messy / unpleasant.
It's nice to see that something you disagree with strongly, like alt-right content, can be labeled hyper-toxic and not be downvoted into oblivion. It is encouraging that HN as a platform can tolerate a strong opinion without retaliating.
...but at the same time anyone who deviates from progressive orthodoxy in any way will be labeled alt-right.
So in addition to the hyper-toxic folks, you will get people looking for a platform allowing debate and a broad range of ideas.
Not to claim that Brand can't be annoying, but he's not alt-right and I can't imagine them both occupying the same space.
The stimulating nature of extremism makes it really hard for a new platform to be pro-"sensible free speech".
That's the rub: Whenever a new platform starts up, marketing itself as the "free speech alternative" to some big, mainstream platform, what always ends up happening is the new platform's user base consists entirely of people who got kicked off the mainstream platform--leading to all the toxicity and problems noted in this sub-thread. You need to be more than a place where the cast-offs from mainstream sites hang out. You need to bring the mainstream to your platform too.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59052155
Censorship advocates always get hit by the divine justice boomerang.