I posted this submission on December 17th after seeing that he was engaging in this type of censorship just because he didn't like the comments that others were placing. I archived the post after seeing his intentions of deleting it: https://archive.is/J2qk9
In his reply to the post he stated the following which is archived as well: https://archive.is/NUljz
Now as far as your post. This is not the type of content that I would normally allow because it doesn't relate to the content for this sub. You have some very good questions but this isn't the place to discuss politics, religion or philosophy. Although I do enjoy discussing those topics. Moving forward, I will allow this post to stay up for a while but at some point I will delete it because like I said it's not related to the content of this sub.
If you read the post you will see that the questions tough rhetorical for me are not for many and are indeed unexplained subjects that fall into the topic of the subverse he has. Yet he claims they are not for they are not the type of content HE would allow.
Though I quoted his rules on my answer I quote again:
Racism and hateful comments: Racist or hateful comments have no place on this sub. This includes the use of the "N" word. If you aren't sure what I mean by the "N" word, then it's safe to say it would be best to not post a comment at all. The owner and moderators of this sub have the right to break this rule when dealing with hateful individuals.
This is a direct violation of freedom of speech as by the SCOTUS hate speech is free speech. If he censors the comments or submissions because he doesn't like what they were about, he is censoring free speech. Voat doesn't stand for that as you yourself claimed.
I also placed the additional description and rules of the verse in imgoat.com: https://imgoat.com/uploads/6da2f590cd/176287.png
He deleted my post: https://imgoat.com/uploads/6da2f590cd/176288.png - under the pretence that it was spam.
My post followed all of his guidelines and respected the rules of the subverse in which I was polite, posted an interesting matter (as per his own admission) that falls into the realm of the unexplained for many of those answers were unexplained.
Instead of allowing the post to stay up to allow a cordial and respectful conversation he decided to take the post after 24 hours of being up without modifying his rules or descriptions to make the deletion justifiable.
The mod of that subverse is not qualified to moderate a subverse following the guidances of Voat and even if the subverse is private, a submission or comment that falls under the normatives of that subverse shouldn't be deleted at his own convenience censoring free speech and dialogue or debate.
He is engaging in authoritarian and irrational moderation at convenience of his own perspectives.
@PutItOut, @Atko, @kevdude, @Crensch, @srayzie
view the rest of the comments →
sguevar ago
Not at all, What I don't want is moderation irrespecting what Voat stands for. The sub can stay up, but he doesn't deserve to moderate it nor own it. Plus his rules need to change and be less ambiguous and they can't infringe on the freedom of speech of the users or subscribers.
Yes he deleted a post that violated my freedom of speech. The post respected every guideline given by him. Yet he conveniently deleted it.
You ending the discussion just because you see it fit doesn't mean that this debate shouldn't take place. But you can be as dismissive as you want, doesn't change the fact that there is enough evidence to show that he is not qualified to moderate or own the sub.