Most people who went to Voat years ago remember their well known resident spammer/troll, Amalek.
Amalek would generally post long incoherent/autistic rants against the Jews ad nauseam until his account got banned and he had to create a new one (this happened almost daily).
Amalek was for the most part a novelty, a person with too much time on his hands that spent every waking hour spamming Voat. He was the bane of the admins existence as he was considered the most successful spammer. Most folks would downvoat him or troll him for the hell of it.
However if you go to Voat now you see his style of autistic anti-Jew rant that would once have been downvoated to oblivion now makes up a big portion of the top content on Voat.
So did Amalek win?
I originally saw the autistic anti-semitic stuff as a necessary part of the free-speech environment there; in part because it kept the pearl-clutchers away, and in part because it was the canary in the coal mine, the proof that the environment was as open as it claimed.
Now I see it as evidence of an organized effort to destroy Voat, to keep it too toxic to ever be more than a fringe site. I do not believe that there really is a majority of Voat readers voting this crap up to the top. I think it's the work of shills who know full well they can drive away the sensible folks, and make Voat an unloved target of the next wave of censorship. It may also double as a honeypot for genuine would-be extremists, which would explain why somebody is still paying to keep it running.
Every potentially right-wing site is a target of this stuff; Gab is another example. The same folks who run a 'viral' outfit like Shareblue would surely run a viral effort to disrupt their opposition - they would be negligent if they didn't. That their efforts dilute the legitimate concerns about the real and growing anti-semitism on the left is just an added benefit.
Maybe I'm wrong, and Voat's anti-semitism is organic and real. In that case it's just sad.