I think this is some tactic from the left, but we have had a big increase in comments promoting violence. Even a couple of posts. The reason the left would use this is simple. Soros funds these groups.
There could be a false flag, where someone could go shoot a bunch of people. Then the media will start saying that this was some conspiracy theorist Q follower that posted on a hate speech forum. They would say something like the person was angry because we’re being taught all these lies from Qanon. Then they will try to have Voat taken down. They want to come after all of us.
So please guys, ping us mods when you see things like that so we can remove them. Posts AND comments calling for violence. But, not if someone is just being retarded and says they would like to kick someone’s ass. I’m talking about bringing up weapons and encouraging people to act. Some of you have really been helpful bringing things to our attention and we appreciate it.
If you are uncomfortable pinging, you can send us a message or send me a private one. We won’t share who gave us the information. We all have to protect Voat, so we can protect our right to have a Q community. Depending on the situation, if someone posts promoting violence, they could be banned.
Thank you guys! 🇺🇸
NOTE: Many people think this is the real reason Gab got shut down for like a week. They want a way to shut down the rest of us. Voat and eventually 8chan. It’s the perfect example.
view the rest of the comments →
srayzie ago
Oh ok. I just replied to you privately, but you want to take this public. You helped teach me how to be a successful mod, but when it comes to this, I disagree..
You said...
This is what they said.
You forgot the part where they said “and kill.” The other said “find A Rothschild and knife it.”
The first one doesn’t say who to kill by name. They name “traitors”. The other, is saying ANY Rothschild. These are specific. Like I said, I even said in the comments that I’m not talking about someone saying they’re gonna gas the Jews. Or even hinting about what our founding fathers stood for. They can say they need to be hung and executed, because that’s talking about the law doing it.
Perfect Example
Where do you draw the line Kev? When Antifa groups show up saying kill whites, kill Q followers, kill Trump supporters, do I allow that as free speech too? Lately it’s kill white parents and middle aged males. Is that ok with you too?
I guarantee you, there is a limit before people decide to leave because even calling for violence is allowed. Hardly anyone is even disagreeing with me about this.
srayzie ago
@Vindicator @Crensch @Think- @MolochHunter @Crensch
Please see these removed comments.
See the above between me and Kev. He wrote a lot more in my inbox and sees this as free speech and not going too far. I see it as too far having someone post saying “knife a Rothschild” and “Grab a gun and Kill the traders.”
How about when Antifa shows up? “Kill the whites!” “Kill Trump supporters!” Where do we draw the line?
think- ago
It has been my understanding, that death threats against real life persons with name are not allowed on Voat.
'Grab a knife and kill a Roth' is, in my understanding, an example of this, and the comment was rightly removed imo.
The other comments fall under 'instigating violence against a group of people', which to my understanding is a case of 1A. Although it totally sucks.
Thoughts, @PuttItOut?
@MolochHunter @kevdude @Crensch @Vindicator
MolochHunter ago
We are against an enemy that does not give a fuck about the proper and traditional legal sensibility of what constitutes a death threat that is at penalty of law, and it is scoping for any disingenuous argument to deplatform voat in its entirety. And I suspect it likely has the power to do so.
Sometimes we should consider losing a battle to win the wider war. To apply a more stringent approach, temporarily - and keeping voat on line is better than having 50 000 goats over at reddit bitching about our choice to keep this site on the chopping block on principle
We aren't considering this measure bc WE are compromised. It's because our enemy is, and is forcing our hand
think- ago
I know, MH. What I see is that if Srayz is continuing the deletion policy, the sub is going to be attacked by the Old Goats.
MolochHunter ago
And that's OK.
If voat gets killed in its entirety, are those old goats going to go over to reddit and defend Srayzies principled stand, or are they going to be on reddit grizzling about what might have been prevented with a little more temporary caution?
I don't mind which way Srayzie chooses in the end. I vouch for caution erring on the side of censorship, but voat wouldn't be voat without many strong voices who elect to never compromise
Roll with the punches - coz we're gonna get punched either way
think- ago
I hope you are not right. :-/