No social network (including offline ones) would be able to operate if they let everyone say whatever they wanted. There is an intense amount of moderation required, even here on HN, to remove low quality posts, abuse, threats, spam, porn, illegal content and lots more. So no, you don't really want one where anyone can share their beliefs no matter what. You just have your own opinion of what should/shouldn't be allowed, same as everyone else.

I, and I believe most other people that share a similar view to mine, are not arguing for true zero moderation. I feel like you're trying act like me admitting that any moderation would make me a hypocrite.

I'm ok with them filtering "illegal content" or rather I don't think that's a choice that they have and is something to address within the legal system rather then at a social network level.

Abuse of the system? Like they are sending too much traffic/spamming/malware/etc is fine to limit. Threats, allow users to block each-other; I'm fine with restricting people who attempt to circumvent other peoples blocks.

Porn meh; I don't think it's a real issue I think it's great to allow users to filter pornographic content if they don't want to see it.

My issue is when they start getting into filtering out "incorrect" statements, "dangerous" ideas, even "hate speech" (an every expanding category), etc. It's very distressing that Jack Dorsey thinks twitter has a moral responsibility to remove certain viewpoints from discussions and believes that these discussion will shape the future of our society.

Any site is required by law to remove illegal content. Other than that, it's just to please the ad sponsors.

Unlike HN thought Facebook has a subscription model, so you can simply unsubscribe from whomever you don't like.

Gab exists for your needs.