That was because it was giving a platform to hate-filled ideology.

The word "hate", in this context, is used specifically to demonize anti-egalitarian thought. It doesn't really have anything to do with the emotion of hatred. In your case you've searched the archive for the worst examples, and only your first example shows any sign of expressing the emotion of hatred (comparing non-whites to animals) - I agree this post should be removed, but it's hardly representative of right-wing ideology. Banning entire communities on the back of posts like this is open to abuse which we know is rampant.

Reddit let it exist for years but they kept breaking rules promoting hate. I guess that's pretty hard considering its genocide is in the alt-right playbook.

The rules against promoting "hate" are really egalitarian dogma; if you look at any site's terms of service the rules against "hate" are simply a long list of identities and how you basically can't generalize them negatively (and effectively therefore, not positively either). It doesn't prevent a long screed about how much you literally hate Donald Trump, or how you hate Nazis so much you want to punch them. Since left-wing thought is egalitarian, and right-wing thought is anti-egalitarian, rules against "hate" are explicitly the exact kind of ideological censorship I was talking about.

For The_Donald, Their #1 rule was banning any form of dissenting opinions for years before they were forced to change it. Anyone who questioned trump ideology was banned with troll reasons like "get gud", "libtard mad." or "SJW"

The moment they were banned from Reddit they changed their website's first rule to banning dissenting opinions again. It still is like this now so tell me if it bothers you when the right-wing communities censor and ban dissent.

The_Donald is an outpost of right-wing thought in a sea of leftist censorship. Don't forget the degree to which Trump supporters were censored on reddit; simply posting on The_Donald was enough to get banned from other subreddits. I think if we can't have free and open discussion, we should at least have censorship going both ways. If one side is doing the majority of the censorship, and the other clings to free speech alone, that asymmetry will mean the censors win.

There is also a matter of what is being censored. If pornography is censored, as on saidit, I don't mind at all. Or if opposition to Donald Trump on a forum dedicated to his supporters is censored, I can at least understand. But when factual statements ("hate facts") are banned from discussion on an ostensibly neutral "politics" subreddit, or when an ostensibly neural platform bans entire groups or unpersons people because of their politics (you can't even praise certain people on Facebook), we're talking full-on malicious, dishonest, ideological censorship of ideas that are extremely popular among the general public like covid-skepticism or anti-immigration. That's a whole other level to censorship that eclipses anything communities like The_Donald have done.