Unless and until you initiate violence to stifle dissent, you're not violating any libertarian principles.

Freedom of speech goes both ways. You can get as angry as you want, you can make every effort you possibly can short of violence to stifle dissent, you can be as toxic and unwelcoming as you want towards opinions you disagree with, and as long as you're not trying to get government to intervene or use violence or coercion for this purpose, you're actually embodying and upholding libertarian principles to their fullest extent.

If you see an opinion you disagree with, and you don't use the full extent of your knowledge and intellect to stamp it out as completely as you can, then you're abandoning your libertarian principles. Free speech means that we fight ideas with ideas, the moment you stop doing so you're betraying yourself.

So if you ask me, you're not being nearly toxic enough, you're not doing nearly a good enough job stamping out dissent, you need to up the ante by a lot, and the thoughts you're having are the opposite of what you're looking for.

Not liking something is your god given right, and speaking out against it is your moral duty, and doing so in a non violent way is your libertarian guiding principle.

If you launch your own version of stacker news or something similar, and you moderate the content and vehemently disallow and purge all shitcoinery, you're still not violating any libertarian principles. You can do whatever you want.

If you forcibly prevent someone from launching their own site, decidcated or tolerant of shitcoinery, then you're a communist. They can do whatever they want.