Yes. However, I find this obsession with harm-based value judgment to the exclusion of all other considerations ethically problematic, to put it mildly. Ethics does not reduce solely to considerations of harm.
The content I'm talking about is graphic photos of suicide and self injury, fresh, blood soaked cuts, bodies hanging, graphic depictions of eating disorder (that goes beyond "thinspo", which is more borderline, and so downranked and not recommended rather than removed).
It's the latter that we believed (based on the advice of experts who we relied on for guidance) is harmful when consumed in large quantities.
I also think normalizing an infrastructure whose sole purpose is to suppress speech is ethically problematic. Rights are rarely expanded once taken.
You're right that people post abhorrent stuff on such sites, but I prefer approaches like filters over suppression. I also think that if reducing indirect harm is important to certain people (like reducing suicide), then there are known effective ways that don't require coercive power, like the public campaigns against smoking and MADD which have both had significant impacts.
I'm sorry, but maximalist free speech positions fail in the face of reality.