The SearchVoat Forum

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:15 pm

MadWorld wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 7:51 pm The concern was what would happen to existing data if the person decided to show up on SVF.

Hmm tricky. I think to be consistent I'd have to say it would be deleted [Edit: assuming you mean a red verified voat user who hasn't been active till now].

I consider the no-dox rule to be absolutely essential on a free speech site, because it protects all users so that they can feel free to say anything without it coming back to them IRL. It should be enforced rigorously. Considerations about "this guy deserves to be outed IRL because he's done so-and-so or he is a so-and-so" should always(?) come second.

You're trying to protect yourself, not all users. You moved the goal posts to include public domain as a dox.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:15 pm

MadWorld wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 7:51 pm The concern was what would happen to existing data if the person decided to show up on SVF.

Hmm tricky. I think to be consistent I'd have to say it would be deleted [Edit: assuming you mean a red verified voat user who hasn't been active till now].

I consider the no-dox rule to be absolutely essential on a free speech site, because it protects all users so that they can feel free to say anything without it coming back to them IRL. It should be enforced rigorously. Considerations about "this guy deserves to be outed IRL because he's done so-and-so or he is a so-and-so" should always(?) come second.

To me you are trying to fix your inconsistency with applying consistency after the fact.
One thing you need to understand from our point of view is that all 3 sites are linked via the archive. This is how Search Voat Forum was constructed and later on how Talk.lol was also built.

If a user, who is first and foremost, responsible for his information, posts it either by mistake or by his own free will, that doesn't mean the rest of the community should be held accountable for sharing the information that user posted. Especially on a fairly public forum, that even if we value anonymity it wasn't as if we forced the user to post said information.

If the user wants to regain privacy he/she needs to take accountability of his/her actions and act accordingly with making that information private or deleted from the other end. It is not fair to make the community nor the site admin liable for the mistake or foolishness of that user.

Consistency in this case would be - "you fucked up, sorry, but you need to take actions on your side to make that information private from the other end" or "we didn't request for that information from you, you provided it out of your own free will, sorry, please make sure to take the necessary actions to rend it unavailable for others to see from the other end." Not going ahead and deleting the posts, threatening the community with a ban for sharing the content that the first user shared and certainly, but no less important, redefining the concept of dox at convenience of the stupidity of the other user.

The user wasn't hacked. The content was not acquired in an illegal fashion. The content was acquired by him providing his own first and last name, social media and then a simple google search that is of public domain. Even a 10 year old would know how to follow the crumbs... And not only that, this happened after the user so flagrantly bragged about him knowing how to play the game.

He is not a fucking kid, and the concern of the community is that he preys on kids given the degenerate art he so proudly shares. You removing the ability to the community to retroactively inform the rest because of whoever knows what, is NOT CONSISTENT (not shouting btw) in the first place. Two wrongs do not make a right.

These are very good points. Let me take a shot at addressing them.

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm To me you are trying to fix your inconsistency with applying consistency after the fact.
One thing you need to understand from our point of view is that all 3 sites are linked via the archive. This is how Search Voat Forum was constructed and later on how Talk.lol was also built.

The only sites I am concerned with are voat.co, searchvoat.co (the archive) and searchvoat.co/forum (here). Talk.lol has nothing to do with me and I am not concerned with what happens there.

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm If a user, who is first and foremost, responsible for his information, posts it either by mistake or by his own free will, that doesn't mean the rest of the community should be held accountable for sharing the information that user posted. Especially on a fairly public forum, that even if we value anonymity it wasn't as if we forced the user to post said information.

I respect that opinion and disagree with it. The rule here is not consistent with your position, even though your position is widely held. Regardless of how the information became public, users here have an obligation not to reveal it on the site (PMs are an exception; just not in the open). I'll come back to why later...

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm If the user wants to regain privacy he/she needs to take accountability of his/her actions and act accordingly with making that information private or deleted from the other end. It is not fair to make the community nor the site admin liable for the mistake or foolishness of that user.

Consistency in this case would be - "you fucked up, sorry, but you need to take actions on your side to make that information private from the other end" or "we didn't request for that information from you, you provided it out of your own free will, sorry, please make sure to take the necessary actions to rend it unavailable for others to see from the other end."

Realistically, this is impossible. As ALS put it in chat,

antiliberalsociety wrote:Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:11 am How quickly people forget the old Reddit addage: "The internet is forever".

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm Not going ahead and deleting the posts,...

I stand by that decision. I will delete all rule-breaking material I become aware of.

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm ...threatening the community with a ban for sharing the content that the first user shared...

I regret that and apologise. No one was going to be banned for what had already been done. I became emotional and wanted to strongly express my disapproval.

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm ...and certainly, but no less important, redefining the concept of dox at convenience of the stupidity of the other user.

I dispute that. From my perspective I have not redefined the concept of dox. I have always considered it to mean posting personally identifying information. Voat.co's ToS says "You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity." It doesn't say anything about whether that information is already public. (Incidentally, voat.co's ToS includes "sensitive information relating to that person's online identity" so is actually broader than here.)

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm The user wasn't hacked. The content was not acquired in an illegal fashion. The content was acquired by him providing his own first and last name, social media and then a simple google search that is of public domain. Even a 10 year old would know how to follow the crumbs... And not only that, this happened after the user so flagrantly bragged about him knowing how to play the game.

This is all true, but does not have a bearing on the rule. I'll come back to why in a moment...

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm He is not a fucking kid, and the concern of the community is that he preys on kids given the degenerate art he so proudly shares. You removing the ability to the community to retroactively inform the rest because of whoever knows what, is NOT CONSISTENT (not shouting btw) in the first place. Two wrongs do not make a right.

This sounds like an argument that the rule shouldn't apply in the special case of "we think we preys on kids". If you have evidence that he does then your duty, for the protection of children, is to report him to the appropriate authorities. But if you don't have evidence that he does, just suspicion, then I'm afraid you're going to have to limit yourself to flaming and trolling him online.

I will not apply a rule selectively based on a user's reputation (IRL sense). This is not a pedo-hunter forum. Maybe one is needed, but it's not here.

This, I believe, is the heart of the matter:
Why can't I share identifying information about a user who made that information public themselves?

Mainly, because people make mistakes. Suppose, for example, I get drunk or drugged or otherwise incapacitated, maybe even coerced, and as a result I reveal my full name to the world. I wake up with a hangover to a personal catastrophe. The information is out there, it can never be recalled. However, this site is forgiving to the extent that should I choose to stay as a user here, I don't have to worry about people dragging up what I said a year ago and posting my name, address, place of employment, names of family members, favourite holiday destination yada yada (all of which is available from "a simple google (or facebook) search").

Sure, they can do it at some other site. Out of site, out of mind. Doesn't affect what happens here.

You may believe this an unreasonable edge case that probably never happens, or if it does you're a dumbass and you deserve what's coming to you. I don't believe that. I believe that everyone - and I mean everyone - is entitled to redemption. And I believe that being a dumbass doesn't disqualify you from protection.

And finally, to get meta: I need to design rules that can be enforced without reference to personal point of view. Every rule in the world has edge cases that almost everyone will disapprove of. But it is more valuable to have a rule which is rigid and clear, than to have one which is open to personal interpretation by whomever happens to be in charge today.

SearchVoat wrote:I respect that opinion and disagree with it.

That's not opinion, that is a fact you fucking kike. If you try to sue someone for damages resulting from stalking/harassing someone based on the information they voluntarily provided, it's going to get dropped. You have no right to privacy when you're the one spilling your own shit. No one batted an eye to the pedophile that Cognitivedissident5 had a part in reporting that lead to his dox, capture, and conviction. By your standards you'd ban her for that, for protecting the kids he was abusing.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:15 pm

MadWorld wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 7:51 pm The concern was what would happen to existing data if the person decided to show up on SVF.

Hmm tricky. I think to be consistent I'd have to say it would be deleted [Edit: assuming you mean a red verified voat user who hasn't been active till now].

I consider the no-dox rule to be absolutely essential on a free speech site, because it protects all users so that they can feel free to say anything without it coming back to them IRL. It should be enforced rigorously. Considerations about "this guy deserves to be outed IRL because he's done so-and-so or he is a so-and-so" should always(?) come second.

It protects usernames & ccp which is a reddit-tier mindset. Any user can create a new account and express whatever they want without the stigma of a prior doxxed account. Is this your only reason?

People should be encouraged to have proper OpSec, not protected from their own mistakes and lulled into false security.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 11:28 pm These are very good points. Let me take a shot at addressing them.

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm To me you are trying to fix your inconsistency with applying consistency after the fact.
One thing you need to understand from our point of view is that all 3 sites are linked via the archive. This is how Search Voat Forum was constructed and later on how Talk.lol was also built.

The only sites I am concerned with are voat.co, searchvoat.co (the archive) and searchvoat.co/forum (here). Talk.lol has nothing to do with me and I am not concerned with what happens there.

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm Not going ahead and deleting the posts,...

I stand by that decision. I will delete all rule-breaking material I become aware of.

So why continue to index/provide search functionality for talk,lol? If you don't care, why are you providing a service for its admin/users?

Does this mean you will delete old promotional material/self doxxes from Voat.co as you become aware of it?

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 11:28 pm These are very good points. Let me take a shot at addressing them.

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm To me you are trying to fix your inconsistency with applying consistency after the fact.
One thing you need to understand from our point of view is that all 3 sites are linked via the archive. This is how Search Voat Forum was constructed and later on how Talk.lol was also built.

The only sites I am concerned with are voat.co, searchvoat.co (the archive) and searchvoat.co/forum (here). Talk.lol has nothing to do with me and I am not concerned with what happens there.

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm If a user, who is first and foremost, responsible for his information, posts it either by mistake or by his own free will, that doesn't mean the rest of the community should be held accountable for sharing the information that user posted. Especially on a fairly public forum, that even if we value anonymity it wasn't as if we forced the user to post said information.

I respect that opinion and disagree with it. The rule here is not consistent with your position, even though your position is widely held. Regardless of how the information became public, users here have an obligation not to reveal it on the site (PMs are an exception; just not in the open). I'll come back to why later...

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm If the user wants to regain privacy he/she needs to take accountability of his/her actions and act accordingly with making that information private or deleted from the other end. It is not fair to make the community nor the site admin liable for the mistake or foolishness of that user.

Consistency in this case would be - "you fucked up, sorry, but you need to take actions on your side to make that information private from the other end" or "we didn't request for that information from you, you provided it out of your own free will, sorry, please make sure to take the necessary actions to rend it unavailable for others to see from the other end."

Realistically, this is impossible. As ALS put it in chat,

antiliberalsociety wrote:Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:11 am How quickly people forget the old Reddit addage: "The internet is forever".

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm Not going ahead and deleting the posts,...

I stand by that decision. I will delete all rule-breaking material I become aware of.

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm ...threatening the community with a ban for sharing the content that the first user shared...

I regret that and apologise. No one was going to be banned for what had already been done. I became emotional and wanted to strongly express my disapproval.

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm ...and certainly, but no less important, redefining the concept of dox at convenience of the stupidity of the other user.

I dispute that. From my perspective I have not redefined the concept of dox. I have always considered it to mean posting personally identifying information. Voat.co's ToS says "You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity." It doesn't say anything about whether that information is already public. (Incidentally, voat.co's ToS includes "sensitive information relating to that person's online identity" so is actually broader than here.)

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm The user wasn't hacked. The content was not acquired in an illegal fashion. The content was acquired by him providing his own first and last name, social media and then a simple google search that is of public domain. Even a 10 year old would know how to follow the crumbs... And not only that, this happened after the user so flagrantly bragged about him knowing how to play the game.

This is all true, but does not have a bearing on the rule. I'll come back to why in a moment...

sguevar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:30 pm He is not a fucking kid, and the concern of the community is that he preys on kids given the degenerate art he so proudly shares. You removing the ability to the community to retroactively inform the rest because of whoever knows what, is NOT CONSISTENT (not shouting btw) in the first place. Two wrongs do not make a right.

This sounds like an argument that the rule shouldn't apply in the special case of "we think we preys on kids". If you have evidence that he does then your duty, for the protection of children, is to report him to the appropriate authorities. But if you don't have evidence that he does, just suspicion, then I'm afraid you're going to have to limit yourself to flaming and trolling him online.

I will not apply a rule selectively based on a user's reputation (IRL sense). This is not a pedo-hunter forum. Maybe one is needed, but it's not here.

This, I believe, is the heart of the matter:
Why can't I share identifying information about a user who made that information public themselves?

Mainly, because people make mistakes. Suppose, for example, I get drunk or drugged or otherwise incapacitated, maybe even coerced, and as a result I reveal my full name to the world. I wake up with a hangover to a personal catastrophe. The information is out there, it can never be recalled. However, this site is forgiving to the extent that should I choose to stay as a user here, I don't have to worry about people dragging up what I said a year ago and posting my name, address, place of employment, names of family members, favourite holiday destination yada yada (all of which is available from "a simple google (or facebook) search").

Sure, they can do it at some other site. Out of site, out of mind. Doesn't affect what happens here.

You may believe this an unreasonable edge case that probably never happens, or if it does you're a dumbass and you deserve what's coming to you. I don't believe that. I believe that everyone - and I mean everyone - is entitled to redemption. And I believe that being a dumbass doesn't disqualify you from protection.

And finally, to get meta: I need to design rules that can be enforced without reference to personal point of view. Every rule in the world has edge cases that almost everyone will disapprove of. But it is more valuable to have a rule which is rigid and clear, than to have one which is open to personal interpretation by whomever happens to be in charge today.

I appreciate the reply and quotations, there is a lot to talk about here so I will try to be as concise as possible.

It is not impossible for a user to regain privacy of that information by making it unavailable for others. I have done it. Won't waste my time on when and how, but it can be done. Yes, you have to sacrifice your online persona as srayzie did. She basically nuked all of her social media and had to start over, but outside of the internet and probably with a different username and more careful behavior when linking information from the outside.

The user has to know that he or she is accountable for the information they share online. For example, most of the people on Voat.co and even now on Talk.lol know where I am from. I've been called x and y on those sites, from spic to beaner, to crhistcuck and so on and so forth. But they know that from me because I have willingly gave that information from me. That is also considered personal identifiable information. I am responsible for that information and I am in no way "reclaiming my right" to say no one can say where I come from or whatelse. They even use my heritage just to try to undermine the validity of my positions. I don't give a fuck. That is on me and I deal with it.

If I had made the mistake of sharing links to my social media in the main forum that compromised in anyway my personal information, that would be on me and I would not blame anyone here because of it. I however decided that nuking my faceberg account was the wisest thing because of mental sanity. There are too many double-standards and people that believe themselves to be more righteous than the rest just because they scream harder. Is sickening. But nuking those links is possible. Yes, if the new username is made... well you can expect the flood of screenshots and whatnot to comeback to bite you in the ass. This would mean that you need to start over.

No one is calling to his job or even the managers of his social media to shut down his persona, or threatening to have him lose his work. People are simply keeping the rest informed about the subversive behavior the other user has. FFS we used to do it with the ADL, or other kike raiders that tried to shutdown Voat for so long, or even tested the redifaggots staying at Voat.co when they migrated to our site becaue they were banned from Redshit. That was part of the essence Voat. Yes, we believe in freespeech. But you better damn well be ready to handle the hazing in order to see if you really can handle free speech or not.

Dude I am a Tico that came here and was shocked to what I saw in Voat since the first day. I lingered and endured the hazing. And even now keep enduring the persecution of my faith by so many users. But one thing they can never say is that I tried to suppress their speech... even the faggot @Crensch can say that for the pos was never banned from PV even after his erratic behavior - just an example not throwing jabs at the dude... he will always be a faggot for me, but hope is doing well.

Yes we make mistakes, but we have to face the consequences of those mistakes ourselves. NO ONE ELSE HAS TO. I appreciate your apology and can understand where it comes from, but again it doesn't justify your position in one bit. We are not dealing with minors here. We are dealing with adults - some of them that lack the mental maturity to understand what common sense really is - and as much as it can suck for any of us, we need to face the consequences of our actions. Voat does not believe in participation prices, Voat does not believe in affirmative action. What you are doing is giving affirmative action to a dumb fuck that through his cockiness tried to say to the community that we could go fuck ourselves and he could do whatever he wanted. Well no, fuck him, life does not work like that. And as a Christian I can say that everything has price we need to pay for. Some will pay that price later than sooner, but none will escape that price.

He had a mere taste of what could be. Nothing more. And what was done to him, provoked by his own arrogance, was a simple reality check.

There are people who are accused unjustly, and I would like to think that you are one of those - you know why I say this - and their path will be harder and feel as it was longer than the rest. But one thing life has given to me in the short years I have is that, God does not let a burden in our backs that we can't carry. And in need of help, we will have his blessings and power to keep fighting on to reach the summit.

The user in question is not being accused falsely. He was accused according to his actions. And then, he made a big mistake oblivious that this community was watching his every step. He has no right in saying "muh privacy". He had his chances. He simply had to stop. But he kept on going. As so many of the other users that were affected by similar situations like this... texasvet, srayzie, and so on and so forth. They keep testing the waters thinking they can get away with it and manipulate their way out of consequences. That is not how life works. This site, and any other forum, is an extension of our pesona, whether is online or not, is irrelevant. It is an extension of who we are and for any actions we take, we have to be accountable for the consequences.

It's interesting that @sguevar mentioned sQuirty. She is the best example of someone who deserved to be doxxed, outside of a pedo. She started revealing PMs and trolling PG users w/ numerous alts, from the very beginning. And the Mods of PG did nothing. Then she started doxing people. Pure Cancer. All the while she's sending nudies out to her boiz, i guess that makes her an amateur porn star. That's a pedo red flag.
She claimed to be a victim, red flag.
Married outside her race, red flag.
She said she was a into all kinds of extra-marital kinkies, red flag.
Married a 'youth pastor', that's a big red flag.
Youth pastor of a new age church, another red flag.
Never prosecuted or killed her abuser, she had access and did nothing. Biggest red flag of all.
But those cucked up mods on PG REFUSED to vet her. I begged them. We were all held hostage by that cunt.

I remind you of this because no matter how much that twat deserved every single bit of the fallout from her dox, it should not have happened.
Her doxxers are as evil as she is. imo

A good person doesn't read the 'thou shalt not dox' rule, and then decide to dox away. Only inbred edomites do that.
A good person doesn't do what Blumfag does either. Inbred edomite.
Oh look! They have something in common with sQuirty.

shewhomustbeobeyed wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 6:03 am It's interesting that @sguevar mentioned sQuirty. She is the best example of someone who deserved to be doxxed, outside of a pedo. She started revealing PMs and trolling PG users w/ numerous alts, from the very beginning. And the Mods of PG did nothing. Then she started doxing people. Pure Cancer. All the while she's sending nudies out to her boiz, i guess that makes her an amateur porn star. That's a pedo red flag.
She claimed to be a victim, red flag.
Married outside her race, red flag.
She said she was a into all kinds of extra-marital kinkies, red flag.
Married a 'youth pastor', that's a big red flag.
Youth pastor of a new age church, another red flag.
Never prosecuted or killed her abuser, she had access and did nothing. Biggest red flag of all.
But those cucked up mods on PG REFUSED to vet her. I begged them. We were all held hostage by that cunt.

I remind you of this because no matter how much that twat deserved every single bit of the fallout from her dox, it should not have happened.
Her doxxers are as evil as she is. imo

A good person doesn't read the 'thou shalt not dox' rule, and then decide to dox away. Only inbred edomites do that.
A good person doesn't do what Blumfag does either. Inbred edomite.
Oh look! They have something in common with sQuirty.

You act like you're jealous of the attention she got so you do everything to involve yourself in her drama when it had fuck all to do with you.

Annnnnnd the filthy fucking doxxer shows up to White Knight for that Voat destroying edomite whore. He's got the nerve to claim a White woman is jealous of a jewess. A possible pedo jewess. I'd laugh but he's just so fucking pathetic. At this point i think als and blufag are in cahoots. They sure do like to play their 'dog and pony' show, everywhere they go. So cringy. both of them