Upon some self-reflection I have to admit some faults. I have made two policy changes in the last few months that I did not communicate with Voat in advance.
These two changes are:
- Adding NSFW flairs to posts that had the word nigger or kike in the title in @System subverses (often referred to as Default subs)
- Changing the daily scaled value for allowed votes in a 24 hour period back to 10 from a mistaken setting of 1000 (which was used for testing purposes and got carried over to Voat by mistake).
On NSFW Titles:
Voat has always had an NSFW setting but it is inconsistently applied. It is my duty to respect this user setting while at the same time not censoring communication. As with most things on Voat, the grey area is large and often results in a subjective decision. With default subs, that decision is left to Voat, and more specifically to me.
The logic behind flairing NSFW titles in default subverses is this: If the title of a submission has the potential to get someone fired if a manager or co-worker saw it on your screen, then it is NSFW. Personally, I think it is straight forward for two reasons:
- Titles of submissions can easily be phrased without the use of such wording so it's the submitters choice as how they word a title and also what subverse they post in.
- Users who have NSFW turned off should have their setting honored. Many users toggle this setting between places (work vs. home).
- BONUS: When not logged in, Voat displays default subs without NSFW content. As you know, Voat displays a lot of content that is visible to non-logged in users (as opposed to websites that require an account to access - which they do to inflate user account stats btw) and because of this we have to balance things out in default subverses.
On Daily Scaled Vote Setting:
The integrity of Voat is important to us all. Upon looking into manipulation on Voat, we discovered a massive hidden farm that was exploiting this setting, building up literally an army of accounts that can manipulate visibility of content via voting. Having a minimum setting of 1000 meant that a brand new non-participating account can upvote 1000 times per 24 hours, making the task of building a manipulation farm very easy.
While nothing we do is impervious to manipulation, we have found over the years that small requirements make big differences. An example of this is the required 10 CCP for making a submission. This requirement literally solved 90% of our spam problem overnight.
The unintended consequence of reverting this setting back to it's original value of 10 votes per day for low CCP accounts is the v/QRV subverse, as it is set to anon-only (Anon submissions and comments do not earn the user CCP). Many participate only in that subverse and as such, they have low CCP. The only remedy for this is to participate outside of that subverse and post insightful and respectful comments to non-anon subverses in order to "level up". Many will not like this, but consider two things: The setting was incorrect to begin with and Voat's integrity is a concern for all.
Here is the code we use to determine how many votes a user account is allowed per 24 hours:
var scaledDailyVotingQuota = (UserCCP >= 20 ? Math.Max(100, UserCCP / 2) : 10);
In other words, if your account is 20 CCP or higher you are permitted a minimum maximum of 100 votes per 24 hour window (or half of your CCP, which ever is highest). If it is below 20 CCP, you are limited to 10. Points do matter, participation does matter.
The Conclusion
The conclusion is that Voat is no longer a start up website. Many depend on Voat now. We can no longer make policy decisions without communicating these changes in advance. As I've said before, Voat isn't mine, it's yours, and as such, policy decisions will be communicated in advance going forward.
Special thanks to @Rotteuxx for being honest enough to call me out on my mistake(s) and @PenSHITLORD for inquiring about the daily vote setting change which led me to write this post.
view the rest of the comments →
Battlefat ago
Transparency is the only trans I’m down with
ChiComs ago
IT'S NOT TRANSPARENT!
Ugh!
There are TWO different voats now!!! Voat is essentially not voat unless you have an account.
I have never had a reddit account in my life and never had a slashdot account in my life. Not ever.
There should be a warning for lurkers that voat has gone private if you are hiding news articles from people not logged in!
One voat for lurkers hides all news articles with the word "Nigger" or Kike"!
Lurkers not logged in (a lot of voat members lurk for months or years) will not get to see the real voat.
The default should be NOT to censor news post titles of lurkers not logged in!!!
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/whatever comment by @CriticalCore.
Posted automatically (#9247) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
freedumbz ago
If this was done your way it would open up accusations that Putt was requiring an account in an attempt to data farm. Methinks you would be crying about something like this if he went this way. Eat shit.
ChiComs ago
I think you misread my words, your logic is backwards in what you typed. read what you typed carefully. Then read what I typed. You realize that literally as of right now Putt is requiring an account to see the real voat, and for example is hiding news submissions with the word "kike" to lurkers. I have been a lurker on reddit and slashdot each for a decade. I would be horrified today to learn comments and articles on slashdot were hidden from lurkers with no visible indicators.
You have limited reading comprehension by claiming I should eat shit when you have NO IDEA the concept being discussed. At wrost, there needs to a be a visible NSFW toggle on lurkers screens that is static their entire session and VISIBLE STATE when alterred that clearly indicates censoring of news is enabled or disabled.
freedumbz ago
Potential to censorship doesn't mean it is happening. I'm a bit mixed on this myself as regular voat at work causes 0 issues for me. Maybe suggesting a NSFW filter in the right place would be the best option. I would word it better though as grammar and spelling are clearly not your strong suit.
TheTrigger ago
You're right, that bit threw up an instant red-flag, in my mind. I get the premise, and can appreciate the sentiment. I'd be more comfortable if voat had the default for non-signed-in accounts set to hiding NSFW content. But at least offer a toggle on the main bar, and give people the option to shut it off, without needing to sign in. That should be easy enough to code in a couple of seconds.
ForTheUltimate ago
I welcome the change, this will improve voat's image and thus popularity. At the same time, we retain the faggot control internally.
CriticalCore ago
What's the point in sharing an image of voat that's not true? That's if what people see on the outside is not what real content there is on the inside.
ForTheUltimate ago
trick more normies into getting redpilled. tbh the redpills on voat aren't very deep anywyay.
CriticalCore ago
So we should lie about what the site really is just to trick people into getting "red pilled." It's much more easier to just show them an edgy JQ meme when they load up the site if that's the goal.
shawnfromnh69 ago
No, disagree. I think all volitile stuff should be censored so we don't have a bunch of SJW's can't just cruise in and copy anything so they can say Voat is so bad and no one should be able to go there. I think censoring non users views might be a good thing.
SteaksUSA ago
This guy gets it. I like how the Voat
goatssheep are also butthurt when I mentioned this: https://voat.co/v/Voat/2850767/15011272ratsmack ago
It's not censoring... Mr drama queen.
CriticalCore ago
If it's not just removing pornographic and gore content from everyone's view, then what is it smarty pants? Should saying nigger and kike be treated equivalently to posting gore to those not logged in?
heroinwinsagain ago
Go the fuck on this is Q's plan you dumb shit
CriticalCore ago
Q is a honeypot
Deathperception ago
Q predicted you would say that