> The places that aren't moderated are filled with political crap such as to tarnish their credibility, so that the people will stay away by their own will.
This implies _intent_. I mean, it sounds like what you want is just a different content policy, really? A ban on politics? Would make for a rather boring social media site, I suspect; everything is ultimately politics.
>sounds like what you want is just a different content policy
This could always be the heart of the matter.
Whether strictly moderated or casually self-adjusting, once an extreme or somewhat non-mainstream "groupthink" starts to dominate, numerically or some other way, then any opposite viewpoints will be repressed to an increasing degree.
The best you can probably do is to engage where you are compatible with the content as it has already devolved.
As I implied in my other comment, probably the only time there is any chance for nothing to have devolved in terms of free speech, is if you get in at the very beginning. Or with greater certainty, it does seem intuitive, hosting it your dang self.
Let's be real: this is about /pol/ and /b/. And yes, the "crap" is intentional. It is exactly intended to drive people away. Because the people who are being driven away aren't wanted. It's vital to the ongoing success, making these places still one of the most open-minded and helpful on the net.
This implies _intent_. I mean, it sounds like what you want is just a different content policy, really? A ban on politics? Would make for a rather boring social media site, I suspect; everything is ultimately politics.