I would say that if those members are hosting on a PeerTube controlled instance, then perhaps it is a moderation issue. If those members are hosting their own i

I would say that if those members are hosting on a PeerTube controlled instance, then perhaps it is a moderation issue. If those members are hosting their own instance that federates? Well, then I think the tool is working as designed. Similar to Mastodon, federation will probably need some controls for flagging external servers as sensitive so users/instance admins can choose to avoid that content if they wish. That'll slightly fragment the market and frustrate content indexing, but... ehh, I think some market fragmentation is preferable to one central authority that not everyone agrees with. One of the fundamental goals of free software is to enable its use by all people, even and especially people you do not like. That's not a problem for PeerTube to solve, it is a problem for society at large to address within itself. To frame this another way: think of the criminal organizations which spin up a web server somewhere and install Apache on it to host their illicit content and advertise their services. Is Apache somehow to blame? No, of course not, the criminals are. The same logic applies here; PeerTube, as a sharing platform, is technically able to share any data, including hate speech and other objectionable content. As an unbiased tool, that's a feature not a bug.