If you want a community without bad actors, bigots, cranks, etc, then it has to have rules and moderation, which means censorship. If you want free speech, you're going to get the bigots, cranks and bad actors. "Speak(ing) and think(ing) in a relatively free and neutral sense without ending up in some ulterior trap" requires curation and tone policing, which is censorship. Otherwise, the bigots and the cranks are also free to speak and think in the same way as everyone else, ruin the community and drive everyone else away.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, you have to pick one.

There are alternatives to rules, moderation and censorship that are still effective at filtering out undesirables.

As far back as more than 25 years ago, usenet news readers had kill files, scoring and filtering at the client level.

For various reasons, the mainstream social media platforms chose not to give their users these tools, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

People are called bigots for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry. And it's done intentionally to weild power over wrong-thinkers.

The bad actors are at all levels and of all persuasions

There are a number of problems with the model (including finding such a server). But censors flexing their agenda isn't a real problem in my experience.

Also what can't you say on, say, Twitter that you want to say?