I took a look just now to see what you mean. Not surprisingly, a lot of the videos are the sort of things YouTube would ban, but that doesn't automatically mean they are wrong, bad or "FUD", which is again a kind of meaningless insult given that a lot of what official sources claim about COVID is specifically designed to create fear, by their own admission! See e.g. the the SAGE SPI-B subcommittee and their reports.

I don't see all the same videos you do, but here are some titles that should cause us to think twice before writing off this site as "far right":

1. "Pfizer whistleblower exposes the corrupt and unethical company for what they really are" - although BitChute seems mostly to be conservative videos, this one could easily be a headline found in the Guardian.

2. "NSA whistleblower demonstrates Biden administration spying on political opponent's communications" - haven't watched it so have no idea if it's true, but this is pretty much the core theme of the Snowden revelations which, again, was spearheaded by the Guardian just a decade ago. This is hardly "far right" or "hate".

3. "Fine print in Biden's tax proposal will have middle class Americans fuming". This sounds like a bog standard centre-right reaction to tax changes. Very much not far right or hate.

4. "Remembering dogs in warfare on memorial day", sounds quite nice actually.

5. "Journalism jobs disappeared faster than coal miners, according to Dpt of Labor" - sounds again like something the left would care about.

I took a look at the "THEY WANT YOU AND YOUR KIDS DEAD" video to see what it was about. It turns out to be some guy getting agitated because (so he says) he shared a video of a doctor on Facebook who treated people with COVID talking about ways the doctor (claims he) helped save them, and was banned from Facebook as a result. From this event the speaker takes a large leap and infers that because discussion of saving people with COVID is banned, "they want to kill you". You can argue that this is a ridiculous inference, but frankly it's inevitable people will look for explanations of otherwise apparently inexplicable events, like people being banned for hosting doctors talking about doctor-ing, and some of those explanations will be extreme.

Is this so different to YouTube? I just did a quick search and found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLpW76qpHUU titled "WHY I HATE ANTI-VAXXERS", which consists of some dude exhorting violence against them. The YT front page doesn't show these sorts of videos because it's normally filled with pop content or very personalized stuff. BitChute has way less content and is a refuge for people who get banned from other platforms, so, no surprise that stuff is more visible.

Finally, BitChute is currently advertising at the top of their site a new content policy:

https://support.bitchute.com/policy-changes/2021-06-01/

Their previous policy on prohibited hate speech said: "There should be a reasonable probability that the content would succeed in inciting actual action against the target, recognizing that such causation should be rather direct." This is a reasonable policy! But the UK government forced them to remove this requirement because a reasonable probability that something will happen is, apparently, not a requirement to be hate speech in the UK. Same for "inciting violence". So they've now updated their policies to not even require direct incitement. Ironically the YouTube "I HATE ANTI-VAXXERS" video would be banned under both BitChute's new and old policy because it directly incites people to violence. This is not the document of some far right extremist hate speech site, it's a content policy that tried to follow US norms and apparently is getting whacked by Ofcom to make it follow the far vaguer and abuse-prone EU definitions (which are still in effect in the UK).

At any rate, from my browse through the BitChute site it actually seems more reasonable than I expected. There's a lot of anti-liberal US politics stuff, but also some left wing stuff, some non political stuff, and a content policy that was already reasonable but was just changed to be even more "anti hate speech" (whatever that ends up meaning).