The proposed censorship of "pseudoscience" will necessarily reflect the biases of the moderators, which may be political. The issue is that it is NOT trivial to properly classify pseudoscience from science. Those that claim that the boundary is clear: you're suffering from Dunning Kruger and I hope you will at least re-evaluate their views.
Here are a few quotes from a Scientific American article on the boundary issues of science vs psuedoscience:
The boundary problem between science and pseudoscience, in fact, is notoriously fraught with definitional disagreements because the categories are too broad and fuzzy on the edges, and the term “pseudoscience” is subject to adjectival abuse against any claim one happens to dislike for any reason.... there is “no litmus test,” because “the boundaries separating science, nonscience, and pseudoscience are much fuzzier and more permeable than [some scientists] would have us believe
The boundary of science and non-science is fuzzy due to definitional disagreements and ambiguity of language.
individual scientists (as distinct from the monolithic ‘scientific community’) designate a doctrine a ‘pseudoscience’ only when they perceive themselves to be threatened—not necessarily by the new ideas themselves, but by what those ideas represent about the authority of science, science’s access to resources, or some other broader social trend
The label of "pseudoscience" is often applied when the authority of scientists are challenged (regardless of the robustness of the ideas themselves)
Finally, here is a quote from Atko himself on the very principals on which voat is founded:
Voat is founded on the principles of free speech, and is intended to be a bastion of free speech in perpetuity.
Let's not censor posts based on the biases of some authority figure (e.g. The Moderators). Let the community decide what is or isnt' acceptable.