This submission was linked from this v/Voat submission by @sguevar.

^{Posted automatically (#22314) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}

This submission was linked from this v/ProtectVoat submission by @lets_get_hyyerr.

^{Posted automatically (#268) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}

you're saying that denying the majorities right to censor the unpopular is itself censorship. .. Which just boggles my mind.

Not at all.

What I have noticed here is the following:

Yes trolls can keep pupping up but when their posts are not within the topic of the subverse nor respect the rules of the subverse that by definition would not respect the rules of Voat, the post can be deleted.

Spamming rules still applies for such moderation.

But if the trol post is within the boundaries of the sub's rules then the moderator can't delete it just because he doesn't like it and the users and subscribers of that sub can downvoat the post as well.

Freedom of speech of both sides is respected on said scenario. Otherwise the Voat community that in its great majority don't like the Q movement would have overflowed the subverse and silenced them. Which never happened.

As @srayzie said to me on a previous conversation about the subject:

I know for me on GreatAwakening, when it comes to submission posts, I have certain rules set in place. Like it has to be Q related, etc. Quality content. Since it’s his sub, He can do that. However comments are different. I think if you said that in the comment section and it was deleted, then that’s not right.

She clearly states that she has an specific rule for the posts to be Q related and other subtopics that can relate to the main one. If such post doesn't match the limitations of the subverse then in that case it can be deleted without conflict of infringement of freedom of speech.

For example on my sub v/CostaRicaPuraVida if someone came to it and posted something like "I think Costa Rica is a shithole" then my first response would not be to delete the post for spam or trolling. It would be to ask why? and initiate a conversation. If the conversation is not fruitful then I will just ignore and move on. But I will not delete the post because of the fact that the user has a right to express his opinion on Costa Rica. If his judgements are unjustified I would just downvote because of not being productive in the sharing of the subverse. But not delete it.

Same goes for any other subverse. They should not trump over the freedom of speech of the users. They can downvote an opinion or post they don't like but not delete it if it is within the boundaries of the subverses

Now if the same users posts the same post another time then that second post can be deleted under the bases of spam for he had already posted something exactly the same or similar. No conflict either with the Freedom of speech of either party.

Does this clarifies my point?

To me the main point is the following:

Voat should add a global rule that moderators have to respect the Freedom of Speech of every user, subscribers or not.

A post that falls in the boundaries of any subverse rules should not be allowed to be deleted just because the moderator or owner of that particular sub doesn't like it.

The rules of subverses can't infringe on the rules of Voat - private or public - they shouldn't contradict the rules of the platform at convenience of the creators, owners and moderators of said sub.

@PutItOut, @Atko, @kevdude, @9-11.

I am not for brigading a sub however I am for the denunciation of authoritarian moderation that conflicts with what Voat represents - A platform for Freedom of Speech. Obviously this would be respecting the legal limitations of such (for example not applicable to CP, as it is illegal).

Consequently, I support that said authoritarian moderators are held accountable for their transgressions to those rules. As a community we can all defend it and without putting in jeopardy the existence of such subverses (small or big).

The only ones that would and should be affected by this are the moderators and the rules of the subverses that infringe the freedom of speech of the users and/or subscribers.

This should not affect the existence of those subverses in the end, but should in fact protect their existence from dictatorial and power eager moderators that could run them to the ground and eventually, expand to other subverses.

never fuck with dial... dial is legion you cunt

dial is def JIDF and should be banned @gabara

Your position is clear to me. And perhaps some of the basis, but the basis seems only evident through conjecture. I believe what @nadeshda was asking is to find if there is context or substance to the conjecture which would help to better find common ground or elucidate your basis and conclusions.

everything on here is calculated...

Definitely not the drunk posting lol

HAH!

Guess the only question then, is whether he's LARPing as JIDF or actually JIDF...

Not a gigantic bitch but doesn't want to hear bad words lol fucking hilarious how contradicting.

I like calling him @TerdWilson XD.

XD Context:

https://archive.fo/41UgC

https://voat.co/v/AskVoat/2883788/15318353?context=10

[–] Dial_Indicator [S] -10 points (+3|-13) 19 days ago

yeah i work for the JIDF, whats wrong with that?

@SyriansFuckCorpses

Makes perfect sense.

public way = public say.

Oh you... really?

lefist types

Is Lefist the same as La plume de ma tante?

Joking aside you seem very suspicious of kevdude, is there something you have witnessed you care to share?

You also do not consider that organized groups in a chat room somewhere are not intentionally brigading subs they do not like.

I have considered this but I personally have not witnessed this, have you?

Kevdude has taken over dozens of subs

@kevdude current subs

This user is moderating: Crusades [O] FakeVoatTestClub [O] gratefuldead [O] Identitarians [M] LedZeppelin [O] Motorhead [O] politicalnews [O] ProtectVoat [O] RidersoftheReich [O] sports [M]

Umm, lol..

In thia case flooding by non members in every thread will occur, schreeching to a halt any discussion and thus silencing the unpopular opinion sub

Do you think people silence themselves because they are overly concerned with their reputation?

What happened to I didsagree with you and your words or actions don’t hurt me? Would this not be a suitable response if you thought this was happening to you. Hold on, has this ever happened to you?

Everything you are saying is supportive of the majorities right

Yes to this.

to destroy the sub and silence the opinion that is their entire raison d'être for the unpopular sub - it is censorship.

No to this.

This is why I feel you must treat it like a strategy game, where you imagine the playing field as reddit

I have never been a member of Reddit and the thought of looking at Voat in the same light is nauseating.

Do you have a Redditt account?

anti-free speech tactics that kevdude has pioneered?

He is defending the right for comments not be sensored here? I am confused are you speaking of another incident that I am not aware of? Please share.

fascists like kevdude are able to skirt the brigading rules due to @puttitout allowing this tactic...which is the main reason kev uses this tactic.

You have deducted this through your own reasoning, really?

Oh 9-11 what is your interest in this sub that you rarely visit, if a mod is deleting and sensoring content why are you not concerned about it? You would defend mod power over freedom of speech? It just doesn’t make sense and yes I possibly have not a clue where you are coming from but by all means speak your mind.

Maybe we have different lenses we view the rules through.

Possibly but I don’t think we are so far from each other in respect for the need of Freedom of speech.

10 million reddit leftists show up

Unlikely hypothetical question but possible. The chances of a spambot army is more likely and measures to report that is in place.

small unpopular sub can still exist.

If mods alienate normal users through policing their speech they will fail regardless.

I (as a holder of an extremely unpopular yet legal opinion) should be able to make my own sub

Yes to this part.

retain control of it, and limit the majorities ability to flood and silence me so that I and other like minded people can speak on topic without wading through spam and fighting to defend our existance in every thread.

No one can ultimately silence you here but yourself. I rather appreciate this. Goats will do what goats do, poke and prod but ultimately each individual has to manage himself and how he/she responds to things.

No one is forced to reply and defend their existance in every thread, freewill to downvote and move on is there.

Sidenote; You know that siting in a safe space never helped anyone grow in character.

Anyway, 9-11 I have spent enough time on this topic and have many things I need to accomplish today. I am sure diessel’s motives will come to play, honestly I think he is poking and prodding and to then expect no kick back?? would be even more concerning for me; expecially here where Freedom of Speech actually matters.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out undesirable practices in the hope of securing free speech across the whole platform. This is a free speech platform and no one is forced to be here.

The problem arises when mods abuse powers and instill rules countering the ethos’s of Voat, i.e. upholding Free speech.

If word policing is left unchallenged it will spread to other subs and cause others to feel compelled to intervene in the pursuit of protecting free speech which we have all grown to love. We all have a responsibility to protect this right in an encreasing hostile world.

We know this as the natural reaction of the Voat immune system for people like @kevdude and others to call these things out.

If content is indesirable but not illegal the downvote feature is perfectly functional. Any other methods of removing free speech should be frowned upon and challenged to secure the integrity of the site as a whole.

You may not like the way people get called out for squelching Free Speech but called out they should be. Noone is perfect here, we all should play a part in protecting our undeniable rights to Free Speech.

I hear your point and I replied about it here https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/2921843/15654752

Once again just my thoughts on the matter.

I think Dial is defending the right to manage subverses as the moderators seem fit; which is a fair statement but dangerous if left unchecked as like cancer it will slowly effect other subs and whoops before you know it, we will have tons of mini-dictators running around enforcing stupid rules and Nobody wants this.

The size of the sub, the sudden resurrection of Diessel into activity, maybe just someone with a bit of time on their hands wanting to stir the pot.

Also last time I checked you and dial weren’t exactly buddies so there is that too to take into consideration with his behavior here.

Really? You cant say nigger over there? Why the fuck not? Shit I gotta go post some Tyronne jokes and get banned.

Just because I love data and have this handy - here is the history of the number of posts per month in v/theunexplained, and the proportion of those made by @diesel4420.

I found a picture of @deisel4420

The guy has been around for years I remember a diesel user in the past who also kvetched constantly but didn't have user power like this version does