Is ther a private subverse search besides looking through all subverse?

As long as I get to wank it on @thelma a sub. She want's me but I am unobtaainable. Thank you Sir!!!!

Technology, like everything else, is merely a tool. It can do both good and evil, depending on who wills its power, who makes use of it, and who safeguards its longevity. You can make wonderful tools, it can be perfect. But if a large majority of the people on it is full of degenerates, full of braindead zombies, then the platform is only as good as those zombies...

I do not like the idea of private subverses, because it has the tendency to serve as an umbrella to nurture certain darkness, mainly CP being one of them. I certainly can think of something else. But then again, sooner or later, someone will come up with more cryptic way of communicating or exchanging certain "dark" materials in plain sight, where new members can join this "group" and be given a common entry key. What you are doing is making it much easier for this type of people to communicate and expand certain "darkness." For that, I hate it! However, there are also good usecases for this feature.

For one, this feature could be used for people who want to do certain documentary/diary of their journeys, without revealing to public eyes. Such fruit may be shared/submitted to the public when matured, at the will of the authors. The authors can well bring in temp users of different expertises, to certain submissions within the private subverse. The authors may as well bring in permanent users/members to assist the group. Another usecase would be for discussion of certain topics that users do not feel comfortable being exposed to the entire internet, regardless of the nature of the topic at hand. I know that people may argue that PMs are more suitable. But PMs cannot be easily shared to the new members, at will of its group members. Lastly, you can further apply the concept of private subverse into user's PM inbox. Currently, it is hard to organize the context with the private messages. There is not even a reference button to save or link to previous message of the sender. Sometimes one has to go back to scan through pages of sent items to catch the context. So it would be very nice if private messages can be organized in similar structure, even better for PMs involving multiple users. was this part of your internal reason?

Private subverses can be viewed as a middle ground to serve the needs of both extremes, one being open to the entire internet, and the other being strictly personal messages. Sure there are downsides, just like guns. But shall we ban all guns, because they can be used by bad people for terrible evil? Shall we all wear some anti-CP monitoring device, because there is a small percentage of CP freaks? I do not think so.

As stated before, the community is only as good as the people in it. So if the private subverses can be served, as the middle ground, how do we safeguard it, so that illegal contents can be exposed or minimized, while maintaining user privacy? If the number of private subverses experience significant growth, it would most definitely overwhelm site admins. If such responsibility falls into the hands of mods and mods are equally corrupt, with respect to its group members, who can safeguard the legality of its content? And how do you catch up with the race, where new private subverses are been created to replace the old ones been exposed? Maybe you could use the power of autism on this platform, to some extend. But it probably is not enough. To me, it seems that the responsibility of exposing illegal content rests on at least one of its members within the group. And with that, I hope this person does not end up on Killary's kill list :-).

Ping me you cunt :p

from my experience any 'private' groups will eventually get infiltrated by (((THEM))).

I would be worried about the CP creeps taking over voat. I know you don't host images on voatbut it would be a perfect environment for creepy groups to flourish.

It would also be a good way to catch CP freaks depending on how much access you give the government agencies. But give them an inch and they will want a mile. Don't give it to them and they will just get it themselves. Lol

This submission was linked from this v/politics submission by @Schlomo-KikesDid9-11.

^{Posted automatically (#21728) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}

Hey pals, when you're done freaking out over whatever Putt's talking about come visit us over at v/NotFishing. There's a cheese platter.

Maybe you haven't quite figured it out yet, but there's a certain value in convincing people (especially a focused target) that you're crazier or dumber than you really are. I can't give away too much, though, so that's all you get for now.

Truth: in agreement with facts. Using a free speech platform for private speech is unacceptable. Even asking about it comes from an ignorant place. It promotes lies and degeneracy. There is no places for lies and deception here on voat. I will find or create another source of truthful information if this is true.

I want to setup a corporate Voat instance for business related concerns that will be accessible by all Voat employees and members of the community that are involved with the operations of Voat (this is called dogfooding in the software world). In this instance I'd like to have a subverse about Finances that is restricted to only company executives, as well as a Legal subverse accessible to legal council, etc.

That's an excuse, not really a justification. You could get the same functionality by standing up multiple instances of Voat (one for each department), and put them behind a firewall that will auth the user before letting them see the site.

The idea of a private sub goes against what draws us to this board.

Use an outside resource for your internal affairs. Not the platform. IF you do go ahead the only private sub should be for the admins and you shouldn't be referring to it as a sub. No other sub should have the ability to replicate the admin sub.

Let's talk about private parts.

V/NotFishing

I don't like the idea tbh. There is a reason this was not implemented since the beginning and i think it will be dangerous.

What if someone chose to open one with illegal content like pedophilia to harm voat? If you can see the content it won't be truly private, if you can't it will be abused.

Either way, there are 2 things i would ask. 1. A public subverse can't be converted to a private one. 2. The private ones can't earn points.

I will support this idea if the first private subverse is for Crensch. And it's also the only place he can sperg. And there are no other members.

For the reasons of usage that you outlined and the examples of abuse, I wonder if implementing a maximum number of users limit would curb things? If its just testing and development would a private sub need more than 8 members?

Read only sounds most wise.

Who are you, by the way @PuttItOut?

Now that you are funded why not make a video introducing yourself? Why are you trying to remain "anonymous"?

I j7st felt called to ask.

Time to pack our shit goats.

If you have an "internal reason" to make a private sub, then make an admin sub, where only you and other admins can post and see posts. No need to make it a general change.

This is a really bad bad idea and gay.

Bye, Bye Voat transparency.

Ladies & Gentlemen, that's the signal, the cannery is dead. https://i.postimg.cc/7hj3PcD6/WARNING.jpg

https://youtu.be/m3LGopSVju4

And another thing. "Let's talk" is globalist corporate phrasing used in marketing. It shows.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's no need for it thus far. The anon subs harbor shit and shit users for being semi private that is enough for one site, isn't it?

I like Voat the way it is now. I don't want change.

i vote for private subs. its just the next logical step and would only help a few people to be less disturbed. not a big deal. im no one though, all my 3 accounts are -100

I think its a bad idea for Voat, and not needed:

• Voat is self-policing right now. While almost all speech is tolerated, illegal content that would get the site in trouble is reported by the users and removed. Having completely private sub-communities is how one baits law enforcement intervention by posting CP, since Voat is no longer able to self-police.

• Its cool that you want to have private fora for Voat employees, but using a content aggregator for private finances doesn't seem like the right fit. Generally internal communications are separated by at least a DMZ from the public-facing infrastructure. (I know that may seem like a lot for a small company)

In it's current implementation, doesn't setting to private also remove any submission upvoats from a user post in a private subverse? One issue I had setting up a NSFW subverse is that I wanted to be able to let people post their own content and still feel as part of voat as a whole. In this addition, would it be possible to remove these posts from all but still have any upvoats applied be counted? I nearly wasn't able to submit on my own subverse because people just didn't like the content when they stumbled upon it in all, even though it was posted in a completely appropriate subverse!

Everything is a fucking conspiracy.

Yes

No

No

I don't understand the ping one so much.

You didn't say it back.

I get the feeling that some of the animosity in this post is coming from Feds, Jew shills, and SJWs that don't want to get locked out of stuff.

That being said, ironically, I am against the idea. Specifically because it can lead to the type of behavior that can give the aforementioned groups the legal opportunity to shut us down. People will start committing crimes here, thinking they are safe in private forums, or even the shills will false flag some crimes to get us legally shut down.

@PuttItOut maybe just keep the private subs available to employees and investors only.

Damn amazzing

i dunno, i think only voat admin, if anyone, should be able to make a private subverse like that. regular goats dont really need such a thing. thats just my thoughts, though.

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

^{Posted automatically (#21695) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}

I'd be okay with this as long as subverses can only be created as private and never changed, so subs can't be shut down by higher ups in the future (as other commenters have mentioned)

We don't need private subverses. I suggest that you refrain from adding them at all. This will be abused to hell and back. We do not need it.

when you say 'For internal reasons Voat needs to implement a private subverse feature in which only approved people have access to the subverse content (pro tip: a lot of features we work on and end up offering were/are primarily developed for internal reasons like the upcoming Vote and Packages features).' do you mean for programming & bug reporting?

i'm just a casual user mostly and not computer savvy by a longshot, but private subs sound elitist & i don't get they purpose.

I don't really have to tell you what a bad idea this is do I? Even if you do it "only" for Voat employees it's going to be a problem, let's not even get into the private clubs that will form.

If you lock people out they're going to think, rightfully or not, that you're up to no good. That's just the way it is. If you have to, leave it open by require membership to post.

Thank you for updating with context and explanation of what prompted this.

TY for all you do👍

seems weird to leverage VOAT site functionality for an internal wiki I am sure there are a lot of cost effective options for that.

How I would exploit these if I were dishonest:

Should we have different "Private" settings like a ReadOnly differentiation so that a subverse can choose to display content to non-members but not allow non-members to submit posts/comments i.e. a read only approach?

If so, I would create a flood of shell subverses to saturate user awareness, and wherein I would post a flood of propaganda that goes uncontested.

This concern is to allow existing members to be reassured their prior content is protected.

I would advocate for this as an excuse, so I could preempt and infiltrate every subverse, post propaganda, and let it go unchallenged--it lowers the effort, resources, and man hours needed to spread disinfo.

Should private subverse content show up in front-page/sets or should the subverse content only be accessible via navigating to the subverse itself?

For the same reason, I would want this, if I were paid to promote disinformation because this could be gamed by-the-numbers with a repost flood, or a flood of new subverses.

Should pings be dropped when the target user isn’t a member?

If I wanted to fuck to harass people, I say no.

A post on future primeval talks about boundary setting, and directly applies to the questions considered. It was worth every minute of time it takes to read.

https://archive.is/WEZwF

I haven’t been around long but don’t like the idea. Hell I don’t like the anonymous subs. If you are willing to post something put your VOAT name to it. We are all anonymous after all so why do we have anonymous subs especially gigantic subs full of qtards?

Wow @puttitout I take back every negative thing I have ever said about you.

Win Win for transparency!

Glad you are making Voat great again.

Ah geez double creaming is bad for your health... so where’s freshie?

• Should we have different "Private" settings like a ReadOnly differentiation so that a subverse can choose to display content to non-members but not allow non-members to submit posts/comments i.e. a read only approach?

I'd suggest a feature where only members can post to a subverse, the public can read, but the public can also comment. This would be more of a topical channel model.

• What if a subverse is private and a new subscriber is added, should this new member have full access to subverse content or should all content submitted before they were added be inaccessible to them?

I'd say no. It'd complicate things unncessarily IMO, and I don't think it'd be heavily used.

• Should private subverse content show up in front-page/sets or should the subverse content only be accessible via navigating to the subverse itself?

If it's "read-only" I'd say it'd be fine to come up in all/front/sets. If it's member-only it should be accessible to members via the front page/sets.

• Should pings be dropped when the target user isn’t a member?

Good question. I'd say yes, but it might lead to brigading.

Can we quarantine all the Qtards? Would be nice if those users could not shit up other subs

Another nail in the coffin for any arguments against allowing people to be private and not in plain sight.

Kev, you okay Sir?

Do you mean that as another point for my side?

What is stopping you, as the owner/developer, from setting up these private subs for yourself as needed without giving the rest of the site this privilege?

I can think of only a few reasons why Voat users would need a completely private sub accessed only through mod permission. None of them good. The biggest concern being that this feature is a pedophile's wet dream and we already know posting kiddie porn has become a big issue for other social media sites.

To prevent abuse (like child porn) all subs should be visible just not postable. Helps prevent active attempts to destroy voat.

Kinda goes against the aspects of transparency and accountability that originally attracted me to the site, to be honest.

:) if managing your business requires private subverses for business discussions amongst employees and you can safely protect this information from exploitation and abuse then by all means do what you need to do.

If you are asking whether opening this option to the general public to start a voat version of discord with private collaboration and scheming options I would be rather concerned about this. One thing I have grown to love about my experience on Voat is how organic some conversations and experiences have been here.

I am sure there are nefarious sorts that plot and scheme; personally I would prefer they didn’t do it on Voat.

Putt, you know I trust you to make the best decision about this but to open certain feautures to the general public will open Voat up further to potential redicule; especially if they use these private verses for illegal activity or blatant harassment of fellow goats.

Now I will read the rest of the comments and possibly cringe at how I repeated what was possibly already said. I just wanted to speak to you anyway, so there is that...

"How to setup a corporate Voat instance for business related concerns that will be accessible by all Voat employees and members of the community that are involved with the operations of Voat."

I think best way is to make a post that asks this question, and get feedback on ideas, THEN suggest your proposal in another post.

Don't come up with the idea, get other people to do it for you and find the best way.

We can still say Nigger right?

I think it would be awesome. I can think of a few I would like to make.

Let's talk about removing censors from all public subs.

speaking of things being hidden from users.... You think you can drop the deets on that back room Voat deal anytime soon?

Consensus is in: Voat loves this idea... Pause... Pause... Not. ;)

Well, I like the part where more people are finally catching on to what you are really all about.

Don't.

i really like the current private subverse thing, where it's unlisted, votes dont' count, and it's readable anyhow. i hope this option won't go away. it would really suck if this option went away.

Make the feature visible just to the users who need it

I vote no. There are better alternatives for business communication that don't involve fundemental changes to Voat.

I gotta vote no on private subs. They turn into circle jerks like /r/swampwatch....

what the fuck did you do to putt!?!? where is he. this is a fraud. sounds nothing like him.

For internal reasons Voat needs to implement a private subverse feature in which only approved people have access to the subverse content

What could go wrong. https://i.postimg.cc/3wGK7Hk6/picard-facepalm.jpg

"I want to setup a corporate Voat instance for business related concerns that will be accessible by all Voat employees and members of the community that are involved with the operations of Voat"

Silk road 2.0, use a .onion

I have no idea what I'm talking about btw, son :)

unless its to make it even darker

Hello @PutItOut

Personally I don't like the Idea for general use.

If it is for management concerns then in that case I have no issue whatsoever but regarding the general use I have to disagree.

Users, whether new to a subverse or not if they have already reach the limit of upvotes they needed to downvote content they don't like should not be limited to an ambiguous matter to "protect their content". Someone should not be limited to downvoting something they don't like just because the poster doesn't want to be downvoted. After all that is the risk of posting something in any forum.

I still haven't check if any modification have been made to Voat's global rules but I stated in previous discussions that an specific rule to respect the Freedom of Speech of users should be specific and clarified there for there is no reason why content related to a subverse topic and respecting the subverse rules, this includes posts (not only comments as it is currently) should not have their content deleted, no matter whether the moderators of that subverse like the content or not nor whether the subverse is private or not.

Freedom of speech should always be respected more so if the content posted is relevant to the subverse main or secundary topics and respects the subverse rules.

Also a clarification of rules should be made that they CAN'T be ambiguous to let the moderators interpret them as they wish just because of the convenience of their stance.

These are more pressing matters than the one you are addressing on this post.

I'm fine with this. Invite only sub, no CCP earned, accessible to admins (though truly hidden subs reduces the number of eyes watching by 99%).

I'm not panicked like everybody else.

dude i tried to sell my account but nobody wanted it

i think its the aids

@puttitout

Hey putt, My primary concerns with this are as follows;

1) CP, much like in the earlier days of voat, we had allot of people trying to slid this shit by. As FOR free speach as I was and still am, I believe with how rabidly some groups are pursuing censorship and deplatforming, voat needs to be VERY carefull in allowing what is essentially "hidden" content. For example a concentrated effort could be made to build a "hidden" sub verse and several anon accounts rapidly post illicit content. Then voat is reported to the authorities, and bad shit begins to happen.

2) agian, I love and support free speech, but the enemies of freespeach will not hesitate to use it agianst its advocates. To that end, except for site admin level and above I reccomend that a some sort of checks and balances system be designed and implemented wherein any subverse mods with an older account and reccord of non abusive behavior be selected for a bimonthly review of private subverse in a read-only mode. They also have the option to report said subverse during that time for site admin review. Make it the "cost" of being a mod. Once a month or so you get a redirect of private subs chosen at random to review through.

3) voat has been growing and maturing into a great place with a great culture. They may call you a "niggerfaggot" or worse, but most seem to adapt and embrace what has become like an "immune system" which repells those unable to tollerate real freespeach. Unfortunately, we still have brigading and coordinated campaigns born of the intent to silence certian voices. My personal view is that freespeach must be protected from those which seek to undermine it. To that end, I think we need to give special attention to subs designed with this abuse in mind.

To be Frank, I am not sure exactly how to address this safely, maybe some logic where if specific users CONTINUALLY target others in particular with downvoats, that priviledge is either suspended or they are made anonymous to that user? I keep thinking of ways in which I could abuse this and it's not pretty. However, I would like to see more done to curb this action.

4) IF you need help, I volunteer my services to you and voat. PM me if you are interested and in need. I suspect my history speaks for itself. I may be able to assist you in one way or another.

just implement full role-based permissions

I don't have an opinion. But for the love of gawd if there is a private setting to keep subverses off of defualt and front page...can we please apply it to the Q faggots? I block and block and they are like cockroaches. I wouldn't care except they will take the same freaking article and repost it on five different subs. Then their little cult of rats all upvote it to Oblivion and the front page is the same four articles over and over. Then after those four articles it's a new set. Without really maintaining block subverse the entire voat experience is just miserable. I can't even imagine what a new user's front page must look like. Poor new goats. They aren't even getting voat, they are getting q-tards. Not cool.

Let's talk Private Subverses

What about taking the next logical step and creating Private User Accounts to operate those Private Subverses? They could be like the ghosts of voat, flitting to and fro, while leaving no physical trace outside their domains.

The Demo-Nazi shills hate this one. Why not just repeat the: "User ban management interface" except make it for authorizing users instead? There's no need for anyone who's not on the list to ever see what's posted there.

Build the Wall!!!

Only question i have, does it keep them out, or keep us in?

It's a bad idea, because it promotes the circlejerk powermod attention whoring bullshit that plebbit has.

I don't like this idea. Just a way for people to create circle jerks and keep away dissenting opinions. I don't believe that's your intention, I just think that it would inevitably be used for that in the long run. The reason I came here, was to spread my opinion when other platforms wouldn't allow me. If everyone who disagrees hides away, that destroys the entire point of it. We already have at least a couple dirty mods that delete comments they don't like. If you need one sub just for you and the mods, cool. But don't offer it to everyone else.

We've tried to have sex conversations but they've quickly been overrun.

I think if you need it for internal use you should build it for internal use but allowing access to private sub verses for the common user is a bad idea as has been stated it could be a Haven for criminal activity Point farming and as a Haven for subversive elements.

a Legal subverse accessible to legal council, etc.

This doesn't bode well.

I like this. I want to see this implemented.

But it shouldn't be a setting you can apply to an existing subverse. You should have to create an invite-only subverse anew.

Voat Pitchfork Test: complete

Results: terrifying yet comforting

Rerun Test ?:....

TLDR secret communities where bad things can happen out of public view.

Sounds useful for something I've suggested recently. Cool.

I like the fantastic transparency of Voat, even for Admin matters. So a No on this idear, Boss. And having multiple user PM's should work for private discussions, yeah? No need for private subs?

This is the stupidist thing reddit... I mean voat has ever done. Voat is dead. Who the fuck os this secret investor Putt? Tell us now or we mutiny.

IDF was on furlough too? Damn, didn't know

Do you understand the various types of vectors of corruption a reordering feature promotes?

I'm beginning to think you really are trying to sneak in tools for division disguised as exciting features.

Who here remembers the pattern at Reddit for "private subs"? Let me be more specific: I watched many "migrations" from Reddit to Voat and observed essentially the same pattern unfold various times - a site is promulgated through several means, makes it to a lineup for a typical MSM alt-branch where it gains more traction, the sub goes private, the userbase thins, the sub is banned, the community flocks to Voat.

Look, I'm not necessarily suggesting you're doing precisely what I describe (we both know why I keep pushing you like this. if you don't know by now, maybe explaining it to you isn't worth it), but this is the exact way we've SEEN this work out in the past.

The reason, Putt, that people are markedly opposed to this concept is because we were birthed of this cycle. I'm rather surprised this eludes you.

Where the fuck are my 5 upgoats? I asked nicely. Nice is over.

So Bigfoot could come on here and make an account, start a private sub for only other Sasquatch to see and we would have no way of knowing what those pesky creatures are up to... I don’t like this at all. You give Bigfoot an inch and he steals all your chickens when you’re sleeping.

Sure man. Hell the whole site is private to 95% of the users. Out of hundreds of subs, most only go to ~5 anyway. These people sound like libs wanting everybody to have access to housing loans even though not everybody can make the payments.

Obviously if your investors or whatever wanna discuss things in private, they'll go to some Cone of Silence thing like in the Don Adams show Get Smart.

And the dogfood right?

Putt is a tranny

This dude must have sold his account. Where did the real kevdude go? ;)

This submission was linked from this v/GreatAwakening comment by @fluhthreeex.

^{Posted automatically (#21670) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}

Yea this doesn't sound like a good idea.

If it's only for "administrative purposes", then I see no reason why we need to be included in this. It's a simple solution, do not, under any circumstances ever, roll this out for general use.

Gated Voat communities?? haha yes please shaloms

Ha!!

The scary thing is all the assholes who are upvoting this shit.

When will we be asked to stop saying nigger and kike?

I just need 5 upgoats so I can make voat happy with my posts.

Smells like someone trying to open the door for pedos to have their own perv corner as if there aren't enough here already. I think this is a very very bad idea that will only lead to the sick fucks among us being hidden.

@PuttItOut

Can you tell us why this idea is being contemplated? If we know what your angel is trying to achieve maybe we can come up with a better way to achieve your goal.

I wish I could be like him. So simple-minded and easily entertained by mediocrity and misconceptions. NOT.

I haven't seen the fucker around as of late, but then I haven't been around as much as of late either.

My problem with it is it encourages a culture of power mods. What is a private sub for but for some mod to have his own little club house? Next they will want to turn some of their private subs public and they will want the same club house concept.

The idea of voat is that anyone can post anything to any subject as long as it is a little bit related. It's simple. Let's keep it. Your user base isn't mods, it's users.

Couldn't you just use email/conference calls for financial stuff?

Otherwise maybe just have your finance/voat company subs go private. And ofcourse the voting sub... to be frank I think the voting idea isn't going to work out well. Too easily abused..

MYG! Ya know he'll cream himself when he sees that.. xD

honestly, a private sub sounds to me like a private club.not a good idea in my opinion because people will abuse this in order to for example doxx or smear other voaters and it also would defeat the transparency part of this site.

personally i would like everyone to access and see my subs, i truly dont discriminate on this issue.this place is about discussion and exchanging of ideas and a private access would stifle those.

btw, i predict people would use this to post very questionable content such and CP/bestiality stuff

I’ve read a lot of the commentary and I agree I don’t see a need for the private subs. You want to keep this as transparent as possible, otherwise you open yourselves to be taken down by the ‘bad user’ ‘plants’ or otherwise.

You sound like you need an internal management system, which I’m sure you software folks could build easily enough. If it were my baby, and you truly want to remain free speech for all, I would use that as the course of action for the business side of things.

You don't collaborate in an app like Slack? Pretty much what every mainstream software company is doing, you shouldn't need your own software UI threads to discuss finances. If I missed the point, feel free. e.g. Google Wave failed as it was really an internal collaboration tool, and not the product email users wanted.

Good luck

Yeah, good luck is right. Goats will burn down Voat over a font change. ;)

But this is a good thing. I love that Goats see the potential for abuse first and foremost as sometimes well intentioned ideas can lead to corruption.

Should we have different "Private" settings like a ReadOnly differentiation so that a subverse can choose to display content to non-members but not allow non-members to submit posts/comments i.e. a read only approach?

Yes

Should private subverse content show up in front-page/sets or should the subverse content only be accessible via navigating to the subverse itself?

Let the owner decide.

What if a subverse is private and a new subscriber is added, should this new member have full access to subverse content or should all content submitted before they were added be inaccessible to them? In other words, only content submitted after a user became a member is visible to them. This concern is to allow existing members to be reassured their prior content is protected.

Give Creator the option. Or even better, give every user the option, all the time, anywhere to hide their post to new users.

What is your database platform? Oracle? SQL Server? What is your server OS? Unix (ie POSIX)? Windows?

For instance, in Oracle you could dynamically pass a variable loaded with users whom the poster wants excluded from his post list. Depending on your index setup, you could efficiently employ this feature without much processor (I/O) overhead.

So it seems you want an "Admin Only" subverse, which should only be accessible to you and people you give access to.

Here's what I think you should do.

• Only you and accounts authorized by you should be able to create and Adminverse
• You must automatically have access and god rights to all adminverses
• Only authorized accounts should be able to view the content
• No ccp/scp should be earned by posts in adminverses
• Employee and admin accounts should have access determined by you or whoever
• Users should be by invite only
• Etc. It sounds like you want an admin thing, not a user thing

Also, you could go about it a couple ways. You could have admin.voat.co/v/finance, or you could have voat.co/admin/finance.

You could just implement whatever version of "private" works for your needs in the subs mentioned in context. Everything else can be left as is.

If the option HAS to be implemented site-wide, then my suggestion is less than useful.

No to voat gentrification!

So ... private subverses ... invisible to the rest of the site ...

I was wondering when the pedos would show up.

Uh huh. Interesting.

Should we have different "Private" settings like a ReadOnly differentiation so that a subverse can choose to display content to non-members but not allow non-members to submit posts/comments i.e. a read only approach?

Why would I want to post to a sub that would have me as a member?

https://www.thefix.com/sites/default/files/styles/article/public/shutterstock_101611522.jpg

^^^ Posters should not post until they are better down from their druggs. druuuuugs. Yeah, that hit the spot

I'm still a tiny baby when it comes to voat, but I think it's a bad idea for what it's worth. I don't want to be invited to some groups private secret society giant owl be the lake midnight seance...

careful about leftists creating cp rings in private subs to attack voat

PLEASE, make it so subs cannot be made private, except at creation. Reddit mods tend to abuse this function.

Voat has already all the functions needed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If you want to make Voat look like Reddit, this is a good start along the slippery slope. I don't like anything about it. Private sub is just another name for censorship and I don't support censorship in any form..

Here's my feedback and concerns: Before you work on this, please make it so I don't see submissions from users I've blocked. Just make them not show up at all. I would 10000x prefer this over any other feature.

As for the private sub stuff, unlike many others here, I can see a value to it. If I wanted to run an RPG campaign (eg. roleplaying wearing MAGA hats and beating up niggerfaggot actors without actually hurting them) and didn't want to risk getting doxxed and attacked by SJWs who can't take a joke, I would enjoy the privacy. Still, I can see why others have concerns. One thing I would suggest is that the private/public option would be set at sub creation and couldn't be changed. As for everything else, I'd say favor public over private. If people really want to keep things private, an internet forum is not the right place to put them.

The context for my opinion is how private subs were used on reddit to organize upvoat/downvoat brigades and propaganda campaigns as well as to share content that was of questionable legality with each other. I am also considering how anon subs like v/AnonAll are currently being used to flood /all/ for half the day and the censor-mod deletes any posts that are not in agreement with their political preferences.

Frankly, I oppose the idea of private subs entirely because it's like censorship by default where someone is only permitted free speech if deemed so worthy by the moderator. This is not why voat exists. If you want to set up a couple invite-only subs to aid in the development of the site then fine. This functionality should not be available to anyone else on the site because I believe it undermines the censorship-free mission of the site.

• Displaying content to non-members should be mandatory, and only putt can toggle the internal subs to not display to non-members. If content does not display to non-members then it will be the responsibility of some kind of voat admin/supermod that can view all the private subs to police them to ensure they do not become hubs for illegal activity such as cp exchange or selling drugs online. There have been numerous examples of these types of groups attempting to establish a foothold here over the years. At the moment, the people who sort by /new/ are the lookouts that prevent these types of groups from establishing themselves here.

• Private subs should NOT show up in /all/ by default, but there should be an option to include private/invite-only subs. To that point, the same could be said for anon subs. This is to avoid an invite-only sub from just being a mouthpiece for some corporation or interest group dumps content on us but does not permit any discussion to actually take place.

• Whether a new user should see all previously posted content is moot, everyone should always see all content

• Pings should not work for non-members. This function will be used to harass people.

Fuck off back to reddit with this retarded idea you fucking newfag.

aaaaand it was posted by Put... fuck.

You just had to stir the hornets nest... didn't you. :)

Upgoats for content and comments inside private subs should not count toward a users CP. Otherwise, farms-a-plenty.

Without knowing the reason for the need we're all just whistling dixie here.

If you have a direct objective, i.e. you need private subs for X then there isn't any way for any of us users to recommend Y. If you let us know (in a general way, not specifically what you need these subs for) then we can be a lot more helpful.

I don't understand why there's a need for private subverses but then this talk is all above my pay grade. Encouraging private subs I can see also an encouragement for censorship as well as the approval of it. But then as I've said the concept is beyond me.

The pedos will make you regret a truly private subverse within hours on implementation.

However, I feel adding a proper Invite function is enough. Add it to the subverse settings:

• Open - anyone can participate
• Mod level x - only mods or owner of sufficient privileges can invite.
• Member/ subscriber - give members the ability to invite others.

There will need to be a limit on how many invitations a user can send out to avoid ping spam and the ability to purge/revoke membership.

Also, is there any way to see a full list of subverses on voat?

Any sub owners dedicated to subverting the jew and/or removing the sub species please invite me.

I think this is a bad idea, transparency in every aspect of this site is what makes it self governing.

I come to voat because everything is open.

I do not like the idea of private subs.

I really do not like the secret investor.

What niche do fully private subs perform? I'm not sure I see why they're useful.

Facebook has a pretty good categorisation for their groups:

• Public: Anyone can see the group and see content. Members can participate.

• Closed: Anyone can see the group. Members can see content and participate.

• Secret: Only members can see the group, content and can participate. Invite only.

As others have pointed out, this could lead to voat being used for some pretty shady stuff. Facebook solves the problem by having paid staff patrolling groups, as well as encouraging users to report infringing content, but that only goes so far and I don't think voat can afford an army of interns.

For that reason, unless there's a pressing need for secret groups, I'd suggest making closed the most private tier.

Also, did you see my penis?

That should have been a global sticky!

I have to assume that mods of these private subs would have to be vetted and work to a clear set of rules to prevent illicit activity.

Why/how would this ever be a good thing?

Only for VOAT admin like yourself @PuttItOut. If you need to collab on VOAT about VOAT, the create a 'privoat' subverse to use. Incorporating all the ideas. Please TEST it before giving it to the GOATS. I don't care either way.

Make private subs readable to all, but only approved users can participate in discussion. This would cut down on spam in some subs and allow for transparency.

If you want your communication hidden, send a DM to the user.

i'm actually perfectly cool with what we have now - we can make a sub that's unlisted but still viewable and no downvote brigaders can bother us hahahahhahahahahahahahaha

I don't really like the idea of private subs on voat.
What would we really benefit from hiding stuff? I can't really put my finger on it, it's more of a bad gut feeling.

terrible idea.

this will lead to mass censorship by mods like it does in reddit

I think it's fine if certain subverse don't wanna appear in V/all but to have a hidden subscriber only subverse is just ripe for abuse. Voat prides it'self in calling out bullshit and this would give bad actors an echo chamber from being able to be called out.

I think keeping it so certain subverse aren't visible from V/all is fine and limiting your up and downvote power in subverse your not or recently subscribed to is fine but everyone should be able to see and call out bullshit.

My first thought was "fuck off back to Reddit." Then I saw who posted it. Voat is doomed.

Perhaps an invite option

I like the idea of read only options for non members as determined by the owner.

Full or partial access determined by the rules/settings put in place by the owner for new members.

Initial thoughts are that if I am subscribed to it I would like to see it on my front page. If not subscribed I don't want to see it. I might have to think on this some more and may change my mind for a non subscribed private sub.

Dropping pings when user is not a member seems fine.

All access to content should be unavailable when the use is no longer a member. Exception would be their posts or comments if possible. Another exception would be if the owner wants it to be read only for non members.

If this is a free speech site, there is no need for private subverses, unless they are perverted degenerates.

I like this idea, but I think the primary focus should be on preventing any abuse of these systems. Do not allow people to create secret communities that undermine the spirit of Voat with the protection of secrecy. This is my only concern.

I don't know if i like it. What do we stand to gain from these changes?

Seems to me it will breed a lot of fuckery and infighting.

Though, my mind isnt made up yet, im going wait and to check out the comments and see if anyone comes up with some positives that i haven't thought of...

Read only is what approved submitters only already gives us.

All users should have access to stickies. Make it optional to the sub owner as to whether they allow access to older content to new members?

Private content should not be available on the front page or public sets.

Dropping pings would stop it becoming a source of harassment pings.

How are you going to police for illegal content on hidden private subs? Legal beagle time.

Sounds like a great way to deplatform problem subs exactly the way Reddit does. Sub causing problems for advertising? Click private and boom it's gone. Sounds shitty to me and like a step backwards. Looks like your gonna do it anyway so my feeding back is kind of a waste of time. I mean why even bother asking for feedback if you declare this is what your gonna do anyway and not even explain why this is necessary or beneficial to us users?

Us users who have heard shit like this before and been burned by it.

The Saviour......

Corruption.

This is a fun road no one has ever traveled before.

I like the overall idea and I appreciate you asking for our input. I do think pings should be dropped when the target user is not a member, if that can be implemented.

Noooooo. That has abuse written all over it.

The only issue I see with private subs is If some ass hat decides they don't like Voat, They make a private sub and stuff it with Cp to get Voat taken down.

What are your plans to mitigate user abuse e.g. creating a secret CP sub or a harassment sub?