Free speech sites can allow anything that anyone wants to publish, or allow a certain genre of topics such as political topics but without censorship. There is a problem however with allowing every conceivable genre of topic, wherein the credibility of the site will be subject to scrutiny by the general public. Some will consider such sites to contain fake and misleading news and views mixed in with real news, and not want to bother with all of the articles that are being carried and avoid such sites. But you can not tell the sites this because they refuse to see and believe it.
The matter here is this thing called “journalistic integrity.” Without this perception of credibility and integrity by the public such sites will never earn the public’s respect. And respect is what such sites need if they want to promote them self as being a source of “non fake news.” If you have fake news sown in with real news then your site is not at all a credible source and will never earn a good reputation.
There is nothing wrong with a free speech site wanting to ditch some genres and hence topics to earn a better reputation as well as the esteem of the public. Its true that this would not make all of the site’s users happy, but it is one way to get rid of those fake stories people post which have nothing at all to do with reality. You know like “Breaking: The Purple People Eater Caught On Video.” Or “Just Uncovered: Elvis Was In Reality A Shape Shifting Reptilian.” Or “Support Me, I Am The Messiah And I Have Come To Free You From Obama.” And then there are those obscure photos of shadows in which the author imagines to see space aliens or fossils as well as alien structures, and so you strain your eyes to imagine the image that the author claims to see. And you end up concluding the author is just wanting an audience and web page clicks regardless of real evidence and credibility.
As for some folk acting as self appointed censors of what is considered to be fake news such as Facebook and Google censoring such sites, they can in reality actually do this in the case of sites that have fake news sown in with real news because those sites lack credibility and integrity, and well they really are fake.
Credibility and integrity; without these two qualities you can not be respected nor considered to be real, credible and up standing. Now up standing means you stand for something, that your brand is integrity. If your brand is blurred between real news mixed in with the obscure as well a esoteric, you could hardly claim to be a real news site. Seriously.
Now free speech does not mean not having editorial review as to seeing to it that the articles remain on topic, and are fitting within a genre. It does not mean that you have to include every conceivable genre. Real news does mean that the articles have to be reality based. For stories of topics that lack any credible evidence, the editors in no wise have to admit such articles or stories if they want to earn the title and brand of credibility and integrity. To be real you really do have to be upstanding and make this your brand. Otherwise you really do fall within the lot of being fake news. Now when a site offers truth and real news, and Facebook and Google censor it then they are acting politically and censoring the opposition and we all know this. What I am referring to here is credibility and having the guts to stand for something and not falling for everything, and not allowing just any old thing through the gates.