You may have seen this thread from rahaeli on Twitter, pointing out (in a fairly inflammatory manner) clauses from cohost's Terms of Service (TOS) that are ~abusive~.
I will note that these criticisms, such as they are, are not coming from a neutral perspective. Rahaeli co-runs Dreamwidth*, a direct competitor to cohost. This is especially eyebrow raising in light of there being similar clauses in Dreamwidth's own TOS. [edit2:] In addition, there are things she claims that are factually not true and easy to check.
(People are saying she didn't properly disclose her bias but come on people, it's in her fucking bio. But the fact remains it is not a neutral criticism.)
What I find disingenuous is Rahaeli has, in the past, done talk-downs of panicked interpretations of other companies' TOS when people unfamiliar with legal and technical language have freaked out about things like "giving permission to copy your stuff onto third party servers" because that's how you send things through the internet tubes. A lot of scary and draconian language exists in these things so companies have the option of exercising them in extreme scenarios. Like when people freaked out about something in itch.io's TOS about holding money or something like that**.
Anyways, that's what I know about the issue. If you have concerns address them directly to cohost staff, and let's give them a chance to speak for themselves before believing something not disseminated in good faith.
[edit3:] Here is information from Courtney Milan, former contracts lawyer now romance author, about the original thread.
(I think Cohost updates the original post in a share/reblog if it's been edited after the share, similar to Pillowfort, so that's cool.)
[edit:] Here is a thing from the launch of the site clarifying a fairly serious concern about how something in the cohost TOS could be interpreted as a real name policy. Seems pretty responsive to me, but one incident isn't even anecdata.
* Dreamwidth is a Livejournal fork. It's been around since 2009, and imo has not taken advantage of many opportunities to grow its userbase despite there having been many social media exoduses since its founding. (But that's a completely different post.) I'm not saying it has to do that, but it's also kind of curious this is popping up as something is looking like a somewhat viable competitor.
** I searched for like 10 minutes and couldn't find a cite; if I find something I'll update. Or you can lmk and I'll add it.