Sorry for the delay but after my boxing class I ate and went to sleep and did not wake up until today.
But here it goes:
2 months ago we had problems with an specific user, owner/moderator of the subverse TheUnexplained that was deleting not only comments but content as well from the subverse he took over just because he didn't like it at all.
I posted this for example on v/ProtectVoat when I had to report the user for censorship: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/2922156
This was only one of a series of posts created in ProtectVoat about this user that took upon himself to censor content that wasn't of his liking.
On my post in his subverse, on the exchange I had with him, I explained that the post in question "So the main thing here is to be polite... well let's be politely dismissive" was within the boundaries of the rules and topics of that subverse despite the fact that the rules were ambiguous and conflicted with the Freedom of Speech.
However the owner of the subverse stated that it wasn't content that he would allow on his subverse despite that the content respected every guideline on the sub.
The conflict that arouse due to this was, for me, a perfect opportunity to discuss the fact that Voat's global rules needed an addendum to protect content and Freedom Speech making sure as well that owners/moderators of subverses shouldn't be allowed to delete content from their subverses that is related to their topics, respects their rules; just because they don't like it.
The fact that right now they can simply contradicts the essence of Voat to protect the Freedom of Speech of the users and this is something I see is quite needed.
I had a conversation/debate with @9-11 on this post that @kevdude made in v/ProtectVoat that clarified my stance: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/2921843 and also on the post that I did to report the censorship that the user was engaging on.
The main point that 9-11 made was that the small subverses were destined to disappearing as they would be flooded by trolls and that this would remove the moderators power to moderate their subverses. Plus I believe this v/TheUnexplained was a private sub (can't remember).
The concern that he expressed was a valid one but reality has shown a different outcome, reason why I used @srayzie 's subverse as an example. Though trolls could come up and try to flood a subverse that wouldn't be the case for the ability of the subverse's community to downvote content that is not of their liking. Plus trolls tend to put their attention more on the big subverses than the small ones.
Though the trolls content wouldn't be censored, they would be downvoted and eventually the trolls themselves would disappear from the subverse in question just for mere boredom.
I also explained that if a repost happens of the same type of content, the repost could be eliminated under Voat's rule of spam. Justifying what previous content was posted before that one. For example let's say that a user posts "PATRIOTS GOD BLESS YOU" on v/GreatAwakening and another user within just a few seconds, minutes, hours (we could add days to put a specific timeframe on reposting) posts exactly the same thing or something similar, the mod team should be allowed to delete the post under the rule of spam and request the user that did the repost to contribute to the original one and control more the scp and ccp farming that some could engage on.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule but this is my take on the matter.
@PutItOut - you wanted to set up the feature for private subs with the intent to protect content but the approach that you took to do so wasn't the best as you realized from the input of the rest of the community.
If you want to protect content, then you need to do an addendum to the global rules of Voat specifying that Freedom of Speech will be respected and content that is related to any subverse's topic and that respects the subverse rules mustn't be deleted.
As well you need to specify on those same rules that the moderators must create clear and concrete rules (not ambiguous) that are not interpreted at will by them to justify their deletion of content nor that conflict with the Freedom of Speech protection granted above.
Owners/Moderators should be held accountable if they engage in such censorship as no one here at Voat likes powermods.
This is what I mean about the rules.
MadWorld ago
If I remember correctly, the owner was filtering submissions based on how he felt, not the rules set forth. At one point he allowed irrelevant/offtopic submission to stay up a bit before he decided to delete it (I do not remember the exact quote from him). But he deleted offtopic submissions from other submitters, without hesitation.
In addition to that, he made a rule, which allowed himself to insult his opponents. If his opponents were to use the same insulting tone, they would get a ban.
It was public subverse before he took it down, by setting a nonzero ccp requirement: https://archive.fo/zZvdQ
sguevar ago
If you check my post on the subverse that was removed it was removed under the pretence of spam which in fact it wasn't. Also the content of the post was on topic and respected the rules of his subverse.
You did stated that he removed content on "how he felt" which translates to his own, authoritarian interpretation of the subverse topic and subtopic descriptions as well as the rules of the sub.
He also created a rule against racist comments which goes against the Freedom of Speech of the users. If the racist comment is within the topic of the sub and respects the rules there is no base for content removal, much less on how he felt about it. That is why downvotes exist in the first place.
In addition he created as you stated a rule that allowed himself to break his own subverse rules at convenience of his own authoritarian interpretation.
This is something that happens on other subs as well and I think this specification of clear rules, respect of Free Speech needs to be added in order to protect content on Voat.
MadWorld ago
It would be nice if there is a due process to remove cancerous mods(https://voat.co/v/AskVoat/2935213/15769846). To do that, we need to set the standard for mod's accountability to the subverse, which we are trying to address here. There is no reason to take down the entire subverse because of a cancerous mod.
I believe the new Vote feature has subverse-transfer capacity, where an idle mod can be swapped out, in favor of the new mod. Say you made a request, and other users voted on it. If you got the majority of the votes, and your modlist was not maxed out, you could become the mod of that subverse. @PeaceSeeker knows a lot more on the detail of this feature.
sguevar ago
Seems legit.
Nonetheless I think the need for the specification remains, the reason why that is is because at this time, as long as the mods do not infringe on any of the current rules. they can be as cancerous as they want.
The subjectivity needs to be removed from the rules. They have to be concrete on the subverse and they can't violate the Freedom of Speech of any user. Troll or not. Allowing the mods to arbitrarily remove content based on their own interpretation without the "due process" goes against what the forum represents and stands for.
For example on the debate I had with @9-11, I clearly specified that it wasn't about shutting down the subverse but removing an authoritarian moderator/owner from it. The reason why, were already addressed on the post above and all the posts denouncing him.
I know to standardize a due process for this can take a while, however a good start is the specification that I talk about on the post and multiple replies I have done on other posts.
Is not about the mod, is about the Freedom of Speech of users.
It is for example the same principle when you hate a public worker that does not no provide a quality work in his work hours. You want him removed for he is costing time and money to state and hence to tax payers.
Being a Mod/Owner is. to me similar to holding a public office. After all Voat is great with transparency but there is still much more than can be done. And don't get me wrong. not trying to apply some commie ass shit here, but regulation of the states activity on private activity is what we most want. The mods can't, under the pretence of their own interpretation of the rules, censor users just because they don't like what they published.
Though thanks for the consideration.
MadWorld ago
You are absolutely right. They should not interpret ambiguous rules and use false pretense to censor users. On the sidebar of /v/ProtectVoat, there has already being a general guideline:
Mods are not supposed to delete submissions by subjective enforcement of rules. Mods are not supposed to delete comments outside of spam, dox or other illegal contents. It is already very clear. But the guideline is not followed. Heck, some users even accuse PV of being cancerous to Voat. If the specification is defined, it would have to be made official.
sguevar ago
Well it is my intent that it is done officially.
If I found PV to be as cancerous as some users claim I would have never joined the sub.
But thanks for the support.
kneo24 ago
I see no issue with curating content. Let the people who run their subverses decide what is appropriate or not. It's user comments we don't want censored. Voat, as a community, can decide if said curating is appropriate.
With that said, i agree we need to hold peoples feet to the fire when they're deleting content that follows the rules of the subverse. I don't know what a good solution to that is, and adding a global rule about it might very well be toothless at the moment.
CameraCode ago
There needs to be global rules that all content removed must be removed under a specific rule. Subs can still curate as they see fit, they simply must have more specific rules. If a sub wants to not allow defending fat people or being racist, they can, they will just have to have a rule for it.
If subs are going to cut down on free speech, the least they can do is list what types of speech they are censoring.
sguevar ago
It should provide more meat to the reports of unjust censorship to hold those powermods accountable in an easier way.
sguevar ago
@Hand_of_Node, @Caesarkid1 (you were censored by the user I reported on v/ProtectVoat), @kneo24
sguevar ago
@MadWorld, @NNdmt (there you go, sorry for the delay), @Atko, @Crensch, @Cynabuns