There has been an increasing number of content that is bordering or crossing the lines concerning making "threats." So much so that we have been formally contacted regarding some content. We are better than this.
I'm not a lawyer, and you're not a lawyer, and it isn't Voat's place to defend illegal content. We don't have a staff to review content and don't have a team of lawyers dedicated to deciding what is and isn't lawful. I'm not also into endlessly debating what is and isn't legal as subjects like this often devolve into when everyone at the party is an "internet expert."
We have to deal with this issue and if content is in the grey area, we are going to remove it upon request. We also have to cooperate with law enforcement, I hope everyone fully understands that we are not attempting to operate outside of the law. Voat's purpose is to provide a collusion and censorship free place for discussion, not taking on a government.
It's easy to avoid this entire area: Word content maturely, avoid implicit and explicit language concerning the involvement of violence and the content won't be in question. Simple, so very simple.
After this post there will most likely be "users" testing this line and hoping we remove their content in order to claim censorship on Voat. This is just how things like this work. Don't fall for this Voat. It would be simply incredible if we just worked together on this instead of the typical shit storm posts like this usually generate.
As a reminder: Voat is for your personal, lawful use. See it here: https://voat.co/help/useragreement
That's all. Thanks for reading. Carry on.
Edit:
ProTip: I decided to post this before anything legal would prevent me from doing so. I have a feeling I know where this is going to lead.
I've also updated the canary to reflect this as well (this may be the last time that little guy gets an update, we will just have to wait and see).
view the rest of the comments →
ExpertShitposter ago
Well @Puttitout, the organizations me, @heygeorge and @trigglypuff represent cannot confirm or deny active or future plans to utilize our agent @zyklon_b against the triple bracket people and the tanning bed people.
We did however notice your completely unnecessary vagueness regarding these issues. If the canary has been updated, then you should be able to name and shame the particular (((US agency))) that contacted you and what it said, at least generally. Secondly, what you can certainly do, is point to the "offending" content. Voat can always use more drama so there is no need to hold back on the second thing. Did someone threaten that orange Jew president?
We are not satisfied with your actions of today, correct this with information clarification or else we are going to have to activate protocol 56b. We don't want that do we? And i cant confirm or deny the possibility of protocol 14f ether.
zyklon_b ago
1990 is real