The only reason /r/jailbait was banned was because Soemthign Awful forums brigaded it then Anderson Cooper shone a light onto it and Reddit got bad press. Even the subreddit ban messages sounded like an admission of that: "this subreddit threatens the integrity of reddit". Nothign about it being illegal or bad - just that its threatening the integrity of reddit.
If they really cared about that rule then why haven't they banned /r/starlets and its related subs (e.g. /r/chloe_east & /r/jordynjones ) ? All they are is famous jailbait. And BARELY famous at that. Some are just young girls who are models on some modelling agency website.
Its not been banned because it doesn't get bad press. Its got fuck all to do with morality or law. Its selective censorship.
Before /r/jailbait got banned it was one of Reddits biggest subs. /u/violentacrez was treated as a cult hero (he got hsi own special pimp hat badge for his contributions). It was only when Something Awful forums moral crusaders and Anderson Coopers program got wind of it that everyone turned against it and him.
Pornographic images of minors are illegal, or at best in a grey area, Voat does not feel that this content increases participation or is conversational in nature, thus has little benefit and a lot of problems. This rule needs more thought and to be more clearly defined.
How about we just let US laws clear it up for us. If you just say what's illegal to post by law, is also prohibited by Voat policy, everything will be fine. Otherwise, you may as well crack down on racism, sexism, body shaming etc...
Anything protected by the First amendment should be allowed on Voat.
in the US it can only be prosecuted under local obscenity laws, it has already passed though the supreme court and the law that previously made it illegal was struck down as unconstitutional. local obscenity laws make everything "iffy" as it always comes down to a jury. literally any picture could be prosecuted, but the vast majority would not found guilty.
what if... what if there was a block all lolicon button or option? or perhaps a lolicon tag that simply prevented such posts from being displayed on v/all similar to how the NSFW tag covers the picture?
rather than ban, simply encourage the community to self regulate?
Community Policy is too general. Perhaps outline factors that if met cause a purge of the mods. Something like 5-10 factors, if the majority are met than a purge. Factors like redefining a sub or changing its scope without userbase approval, banning long-time, active contributors, deleting comments, multiple complaints from long-time, active subscribers, stated intent to destroy the sub etc.
Please give us the ability to vote mods in and out. Thank you.
Define dox clearly in the agreement, and yes, start implementing your user policy. Otherwise it's useless verbiage that opens you up to liability and clutters the user agreement. Given the nature of a free speech forum, protecting users from malicious dox is fundamental. Please enforce.
Fukken spot on. Community actualized repercussions are THE answer. Do it like Mexico does, don't vote, yours goes to the encombents position. Y'all just set the golden spike in the track with this move, great work. Sincerely.
I just took a look at the removed posts in /v/canada wow the mods there are assholes. Censoring articles that pertain to media coverage from groups they don't like.
Finally. Dox is the one thing on the internet that can cause real world harm, through swatting and harassment (actual harassment that has cost people their jobs and stifled speech, not the BS definition of harassment). As far as I am concerned, this is preserving Voat's stance on free speech far more than harming it, since as far as I've seen dox is almost exclusively used to stifle speech a small, obsessive minority deem inappropriate.
The two big adjustments I would make are requiring intent to violate the rules, and excluding visibly public information such as a person's own twitter account/profile. For the former, this is the difference in posting say a leaked email that happens to contain a phone number somewhere in it and posting the same phone number in a pastebin with the explicit or implied intent to flood the number. I saw Reddit ban and threaten a number of users and subreddits for posting massive document drops (the Games Journo Pros leaks come to mind) that contain Personal Information somewhere within but the leaks are far too large to "clean up" everything, not to mention there could very well be nothing within them and it's impossible to prove the negative. Whether this leads to harassment (once again actual harassment) or not a massive document coincidentally containing PI is vastly different than purposely posting someone's PI, and this would give future Voat admins an ultimate veto against posting any large document under the guise of preventing dox. (You have to assume that all powers will be abused when granted them, it's what keeps powers in check.)
The other adjustment, excluding personal information posted by a person themselves, is much more straight forward. Reddit banned subs from posting any twitter or archived twitter links because they considered it "Personal Information". This meant fan subs can't post links to what their person/organization posted on twitter, even with the persons blessings. It also made anything posted on social media very easy to dismiss as fake, since social media posts are so easily fake able without direct links or archives. Every social media site in existence has privacy controls and if a person doesn't want this info public, they should make their accounts private or delete them all together. It's not on Voat to "protect" them and give them a massive new censorship tool in the process.
The more rules you make, the shittier Voat becomes. I'd rather use my own ability to ignore things that I don't like, then to have mommy and daddy out there banning things to make sure that I don't get triggered.
Dox, and prepare to be Doxed. Rather than making shitty rules about Doxing, rules which will invariably undermine the site itself, let people take responsibility for their identities and their presence in the world. If you don't want some shithead doxing you, don't be friends with shitheads, don't let shitheads know your alternate identities, etc.
I think the real question is what do dictators all have in common? They all want to punish anyone that criticizes them. "Who are you not allowed to question?"
Whoever is okay with making public who votes on what has barely even thought about what it is they want. It will be used against you and have essentially zero positives. Whatever positive you think there might be, the negatives will and do outweigh it. People will witch hunt even more for someones wrong think in how they voted, mark my words.
If we want to beat Reddit we don't need such carved-in-stone rules. We need to act on a per-situation basis. I dislike the idea of turning voat into Reddit or Digg.
sigh Loli is protected content under Free Speech, you dense motherfucker...Here's what you don't get:
You want to start going after folks' 1st Amendment Rights, if the courts don't stop you, the citizenry exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights and the natural, god-given rights, as well as duties, listed in the Declaration of Independence, will. It doesn't matter who the Head Politician is. Trump isn't immune either, and if he doesn't play ball, then we'll boot him the same as we have so many other politicians in Congress last election.
Protecting Free Speech makes me a cuck now? Eh? I'm pretty sure Reddit caught wind of the anon conversation and is now shipping folks to fuck with us. Or we just got flooded with trolls. Calling a Goldwater Conservative a "commie", that's funny...it's clear you've got nothing of value to add here, so we're done here. What an ignorant and shortsighted fucktard...
I'm not a lolicon or a pedo, so if you're not on my side (The side of Free Speech and Free Expression), the only side you can be on is the Establishment's, because they only thing I've been against going after is the lolicons, since their content is protected under the 1st Amendment. And if you're on the Establishment's side, you have no place here, you shortsighted nigger.
Voat isn't regular society, free speech has been part of its mission statement from the start, including many things that mainstream people and even I would consider deplorable or horrific, yet I'll support the right for things like racist subs to exist as long as they don't invade the rest of the site.
And that's relevant...how? Point being, if the folks most known for moral busybodying (They were the only remaining supporters of sodomy laws, laws that mandated government involvement in how people have sex...keep in mind, eating your girlfriend out would often be classed as "sodomy", under the definition of these laws, before they were overturned by SCOTUS) couldn't get loli banned from the US because of the 1st Amendment, I doubt Trump (A Moderate dressed in Republican clothing) can...and it's a good thing, too, because it would set a precedent for going after any other media deemed "disgusting", "offensive", or "subversive".
Guess who else is deemed "disgusting", "offensive" and "subversive" by the mainstream powers-that-be...that's right, WE ARE, you shortsighted dipshit!!!
Take out the protections Loli enjoys, and you set precedent for going after us all, you ignorant fuck. You may be a right-winger, but your authoritarianism factor is off the charts. So you either envision yourself the master of others, as the quote goes, or you really are just that shortsighted and foolish. Neither speaks well for you.
Considering Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition was under a conservative administration, pressed by a hardline, right-wing evangelical attorney general...I wouldn't hold your breath.
I'm not sure this applies to this announcement, but apparently there are new content rules being enforced preventing content creators from submitting their own content?
v/ReportSpammers admits my content is high value, and people seem to like it, but I am now required to submit 50% content I haven't written to be able to submit 50% content I have written?
I've been falsely accused of spamming for posting high value content on Medium.com which is a publishing platform I do not own. The person who reported me, and the moderator both do not seem to understand how Medium works, and are threatening to ban both my account, as well as the domain names of Medium, and a few of the publishers who use Medium who have syndicated my content. Medium and the publishers do not display advertising, and I am not paid to write for Medium, or these publishers. I am not making money by submitting content to Medium, or Voat.
I mostly write with the intention of informing others, educating others, and creating value for others. Occasionally I'll write and submit something for fun as well. Almost everything I've submitted has been well received by the Voat community, and mostly been upvoted.
Why would Voat, a news aggregation website, enforce a content policy that forces high value content creators like myself who write content the Voat community enjoys to submit 50% of their submissions as 3rd party low value content to be able to continue to submit high value content of their own? You're essentially forcing me to submit content I cannot verify the intention of that may contain advertising, and content that is lower value to the community.
Again, I have no intention of monetizing my writing. I'm executive in the tech industry, and make plenty of money and I write to educate others, and keep them informed of both politics, and tech news and concepts. My username is under my actual name, I'm publishing and submitting to Voat with full transparency here, and I am not doing anything wrong.
If policies like this are actively enforced then it will force me to stop using Voat, and will likely prevent other content creators from doing so as well.
this counts as a different site. if you post all your stuff on medium, and simply archive half of it, and post the archive link (which will also have a link back to medium) it seems to me like you would be following the rules.
That's clever. I might start doing this. Thank you.
We live in fucked up times when the last "free speech" news and content aggregator makes a rule that actively forces you to post ad riddled content and clickbait to be able to submit you're own high value content. Since when did sharing new ideas become so difficult?
I must agree with what I read to be the majority of opinion. we cannot set limits on speech outside of something blatantly illegal. The Sexualized Content of Minors policy would require redefinition and likely majority community approval.
The doxxing rule should only be applied when targeting another Voat user.
Reddit mods are constantly removing comments under the guise of doxxing even when it's targeted at a public figure.
Why should we give a fuck about Reddit users? If somebody has the info of a nazi mod on Reddit I say fuck em.
At any rate there would be no gray area. Voat users NOT OK, anybody else OK.
The only thing that I'd like to see is that a sub with a substantial subscriber base be informed when a subrequest has been initiated. Case in point, v/space was recently requested and granted to a new Voat user who met the bare minimal requirements to be given the sub. Since, he's increased his presence, but the sub has 34K subscriber base, many of which were regular daily contributors who had been given no notice that the sub was going to be transferred. A simple sticky informing everyday users of the pending transfer would have given all 34K an opportunity to either endorse or reject someone with no credibility in that subverse. At the very least, the requirements for transfer for such a large sub should be increased. At the time of transfer, the mod given the sub had four submissions. More than a few others have a hundred plus submissions and have kept the sub filled with relevant content.
People are concerned about how the community policy voting thing could be abused by bots, vote farming accounts etc. Could I suggest that making it necessary that someone have x CCP (100 or whatever) in that particular subverse would address that? So someone vote farming high CCP in some subverse used for that purpose couldn't then vote on policy/mods in subverses they aren't active contributing members of (which I think is people's concern?).
Rules don't make a community good, their administrators and moderators do. You're never going to have a perfect rule set and it's a fools errand to try. Instead people need to keep shit from going off the rails.
Hey yeah! Let's violently lash out at people because we disagree with their victimless acts. They may violently lash out at people after all.
The danger from people like you is that you beleive you can justify violence on someone for an act that harms nothing & no one. Arbitrary self-justification of violence is far more dangerous than any image drawn from imagination.
How about actually having freedom of expression and letting people fucking vote on something instead of being a marxist orwellian piece of shit and trying to force only specific dialectic to ever be posted?
Because that is anarchy. That is /b/ . Honestly, good conversation can come out of it, but /b/ is much like 1M monkeys on 1M keyboards ... eventually you'll get a Shakespearean Sonnet out of it, but it's going to take a while.
With the exception of the Catch all Policy i am against all of these rules, either because it's impossible to implement them in the desired way, or because i'm simply unconvinced of their necessity.
they gotta ban cp you fag, do you wanna pay for thier fucking lawyer when they pulled into court because because some moron think points children is free speech. fucking idiot
Very concerning the amount of discussion in this thread related specifically about sexualization of minors and ow close one can get to illegal content before it's banned. While I've not read through all 850 comments thus far, I've read about 1/4 of them and this seems to be the rule of contention. I don't care about your free speech. Period. Go to 4chan or some dark corner of the web to jack off to that shit. Or better yet, stick your dick in a light socket and do the world a favor.
what concerns me is v/pizzagate, that should be shut down. it bothers me that it is the 2nd most popular post. these people are putting voat at great risk by doxing powerful political players. they are breaching the 4th amendment and starting a witch hunt. that channel is a poster child for fascism and is completely unpatriotic.
The point is that, if its NOT illegal, and it's banned, then you now have a precedent of "We will ban things that are not illegal, but are highly distasteful." A week later, /v/niggers is gone, well no big deal there, /v/niggers is pretty disgusting. Then you ban /v/fatpeoplehate, because hey, being mean to black people and being mean to fat people are basically the same thing, and you see where this is going. I find the content posted to subs like /v/youngladies wholly disgusting, but since it is legal, we must keep it up to avoid censorship creeping in.
I'm not talking about setting any precedent. Post all the highly "distasteful" things a user wants and let people decide whether to participate in the forum/thread. Sexualized images of children in any form should be banned. If there is one rule that is not up for discussion or voat, that would be the one.
It does't matter if you WANT it to be a precedent or not, you aren't the supreme court, and this isn't bush v. gore. Any action the admins take can and will be recorded, remembered, and used against them if someone else wants something done with the site. This is why the banning of /r/creepshot was so significant, why Spez editing comments was so significant. If we ban these abhorrent but legal communities, people will say "well, you did it to /v/youngladies, what's wrong with doing it to x." In fact, that's what you're doing right now: "Well we banned illegal content, so what's wrong with banning stuff that isn't illegal, but what I, user 7600909, personally feel should be illegal." Voat doesn't cater specifically to you, or to me, or to anyone but the admins (and relevant law) in regards to what we want on this site. If it were otherwise, I'm sure people in conservative countries would have had us shut down long ago because of the existence of /v/boobies4atko. As it stands right now, the admins have proven to care very much about freedom of expression, and that means protecting these communities, much as we might not like them (in fact, I know atko has publicly stated that he detests /v/niggers, and its presence on the site; he allows it to continue not because he agrees with it, but because if he did not, he could no longer say that this place stands for free speech). Laws protecting free speech aren't important because they allow the popular speech, that stuff would be allowed anyways, Free speech protections exist specifically for the controversial stuff.
If you don't want to be part of a site that harbors this kind of content, then, congrats, you can go to, as you put it, 4chan, or some dark corner of the web, or even back to reddit. Just know that no place that won't at least tolerate these things that you hate will EVER be able to call itself a bastion of free speech, and not be lying to the users and to itself.
If you DO like free speech, my advice is to block it and move on with your life. Was that so hard?
If a forum decides to define free speech as the having the right to engage in child sexual exploitation, then yes. I will move on and it won't be hard. I've spent enough time in the sick world of /v/pizzagate research everyday and the shocking number of internet pedophiles you will find daily barking about their "rights" because it's "no different than LGBT". You're lecture to me about the free speech, as though I've somehow blurred the lines, is falling on deaf ears. I no not now, nor will I ever, equate the right of free speech with the right to sexually exploit children. Voat does not cater to me, that is correct. They asked for input and I offered mine. Time to move on.
I think we should try and live by the rules of 'compassion and evidence'.
Basically, we should be compassionate to the idea of free speech and remain committed to expressing our own opinions passionately or not - with the idea that those who are not bringing anything useful to whatever subverse or discussion thread will just be downvoated or ignored by other legitimate Voaters. This is the ideal on which Voat stands.
Only if there is provable evidence of wrongdoing - malicious doxxing, posting immoral content (child exploitation, torture/snuff films, etc), and CPP farming then that user should be IP banned and also notified to the authorities if there is evidence of repeat offending. If there is evidence. No arguments.
Mods should be there to maintain these two standards. Nothing more.
Don't like the last one. Whether sexualized content is "beneficial" or not, if it's not actually porn, and therefore not illegal, I don't see the point in banning it.
My only issue is that doxing is set to only apply to voat users, we do not need to be putting up the info of anyone weather they are a member of this site or others.
Cool, your argument advocating the illegal distribution of personal information, which is considered a violation of privacy, has no legitimate backing so you have to start with the insults.
It's okay for voat to remove some illegal things, ie rule 4 above, but not other illegal content?
Vigilante justice is not justice. Doxing is just as cowardly as trolling, and accomplishes nothing. ... But it's okay if you can't figure that out.
If someone desires kids, and they get off to some cartoons instead of molesting somebody, congrats, you saved a kid.
If someone desires kids, and they can find literally nothing else to get off to, because no matter what substitute they try it's going to end in being screamed and raged at, they're more likely to go molest somebody.
Child Porn clearly has no place on Voat. Having said that, I cringe at the notion of censorship. It is a slippery slope. Look at what Reddit has become.
My preference would be the addition of a user option to block 1. posters and 2. specific content sources. That way it is the user's decision not to view specific posts and it only affects that user. I don't care what Amalek posts I don't want to see it. Perhaps someone else does. No reason for me, or the mods, to get in their way.
Presumably this would reduce the burden on the mods who currently play wack-a-mole, chasing whatever alias Amalek is using today.
As for illegal content, a "report" button could be included. This could be used to immediately restrict access to said content until the mods have an opportunity to follow up.
i think the report function could be abused unless it is somehow linked to an IP address. what is to stop me from creating alt accounts and reporting everything i disagree with?
Any system can be abused -- and its amazing the lengths people will go to to abuse a system.
That is specifically why, if I were designing it, I would not automatically hide 'reported' content until the mods review it. At the very least I would set a threshold, e.g. number of 'reports', that had to occur before it was hidden. Also, If I did set a threshold, I wouldn't publicize what it is. Perhaps not even to the mods.
The one with the girl in white underwear/bikini posing. That pic has no other purpose than to be sexual. Hecho posted a bunch of similar ones but you can't view them anymore.
Ad hominem fallacies are not an argument. If you want to claim drawings are not protected speech under Freedom of Speech policies, then explain why drawings are protected under the First Amendment.
Moderators that decide to alter rules in a subverse that results in new content being deleted and/or users banned, where said content and/or users were previously allowed, and vice versa, must get community support before putting these changes into effect.
Not only does this in itself stifle the evolution of subs, but the whole "community support" bit is vague. Ultimately, in the subs I mod, I try to cater to those who post to it. Why should the Voat community-at-large--that is to say those who don't contribute to any of the subs I mod, or even subscribe to them--have any say in how those who do want to see the place run?
I'm a fan of, "If you don't like it, make your own." Voat to be, too.
Moderators that control generic subverses must allow free conversation to occur and not stifle it, unless clearly defined upon subverse creation.
What is a "generic subverse"? And when you say "free conversation," does that also include conversation that is ultimately not relevant to the topic of the subverse?
You're the one claiming it needs to be banned, burden of proof, as well as the burden of explaining how this ban remains within Voat's principles of protecting free speech, falls upon you.
Funny you should mention niggers. If it were /v/niggers we were talking about banning, on grounds that people found it offensive, you'd tell them to go back to Reddit and otherwise pitch your shit. Censored speech, by definition, is not free speech. You don't like the content, block the subverse and downvoat it like a responsible human being that respects free speech, instead of bawling for a Reddit-style safe space free of the legal content you find offensive like some Tumblr-tier SJW.
Last I checked, nobody is forcing you to subscribe to any of the loli subs, nor keeping you from blocking them. I fail to see any "shoving of anything" into anyones faces here, aside from your moral busybodying forcing your personal tastes into the faces of others who don't share them...and I say this as someone absolutely sickened by the lolicons.
Why "white night" those people? If they legitimately do something illegal then turn it into the authorities. Like that pedofile teacher on 4chan. (If you remember that, basically teacher dated underage girl. Internet got proof. Submitted it to local PD, based on his personal information found online. Pedo in jail.) Mob mentality will NEVER solve a problem.
I've also never seen doxing do any good. It's been neutral, at best. And can be terrible. When you shut up a troll on one forum he just pops up elsewhere. The negatives definitely outweigh the not negatives. (I won't call them positives.). When misinformation is put out there the victim cannot defend themselves.
I know our information is out there and accessible but it's not a moot point. ... It's one less reason for them to get the information from the servers. Plus, using voat as a forum to distribute personal information is a quick way to lose this reddit analogue.
70% of this i find to be bullshit, even if looking overall this is complete bullshit, and what appeared to be a freedom of speech childplay at beggining now it seems the appearences are just being kept at the limit of all this charade being fake... it actually transforms into a fake shit. just like a teenager girl is starting to use makeup cause its getting old.
And what are you hoping to accomplish by taking damaged minds and breaking them further? If you want to protect society, don't back dangerous people into a corner.
I agree with all the rules, but what about rule Sexualized Content of Minors, I see /v/toddlers and whatever popping up in /v/new/ etc, I was surprised those subs were allowed to exist(while we clearly hate pedophiles that reddit protect, and also pizzagate).
Like others, I have a problem with the sexualized minors rule. If it's legal, it should be allowed, if it breaks the laws it should not be allowed. Subjective morality is not something that should be part of the site wide rules, especially since this is supposed to be a bastion of free speech. Feelings can go fuck themselves. Let @hecho perv out in his little corner. He's likely got a few stalkers just itching for the moment he fucks up and posts something that's actually illegal to get him banned.
Once you start dictating morality, what's next? Banning v/soapdoxbanhammer for being irritating? Banning v/science for posting pop-science articles?
TL;DR - Fuck feelings, keep what's legal and throw out what's illegal.
You're right, allowing a witch-hunt is a good policy to enforce. .. What if the information you find isn't correct? Who will QC the doxxing to ensure you attack the right people? The terrible outcomes of doxxing are all the more reason to not allow it.
If you don't want free speech restricted then you're okay with Voat providing your information to authorities in order to prosecute you when you facilitate crimes caused by positing sensitive information of an individual? (I don't mean you specifically, I use it in general terms) .... I'd rather keep the integrity of voat (Ie Not giving investigators a reason to gain user information.) than let you win a pissing match.
Especially if you're going to start having votes play any real role in the way subs are operated, you need to do something about vote manipulation. Recently a number of subs, including /v/space and /v/whoa, were taken over by people using bots/alts to get the minimum requirements to request the sub and then doing just that. This has in no way been dealt with. Adding even more things people can control with bots/alts and vote manipulation in general is a very bad idea until this is fixed.
Yeah. This line: "Voat does not feel that this content increases participation or is conversational in nature, thus has little benefit" is particularly disturbing. It sounds like a cheap PR statement. Voat is not a hive mind and admins shouldn't dictate what is best for their users.
**Adding new mods - I've only been here for about a month. From my observations, the Voat community, being what it was apparently designed to be, should have some knowledge beforehand of who is in consideration to become a mod. Voat members should have the opportunity to review the person who is in consideration for becoming a mod by checking posting/voating history and decide collectively.
The daily infighting over "mod shills" in the /v/pizzagate subverse is detracting from what the forum was designed to do. Which would be a win for those sabotaging mods who have been revealed for what they are thus far.
The imagery ban on anything sexualizing children may be hard to impose and keep the integrity of "subverse pizzagate", as it is not porn. I postrd a weird picture this morning because i dobt know what it is. Because before reading on voat I hadn't heard about panda anything as a code. Is a fully dressed child laying with a giant panda stuffy sexualized? Or Is it a way to advertise drugging kids? Who knows...i was wondering. Also, Video and surveilance cameras, face book and all internet or someone walking by with a cell phone camera...all these catch real life sexualization of children in even "normal" settings. (Sexualized is often hand in hand with normalized thats why its so invisible to the naked eye. Because kids and information is hidden) These clues are what researchers and investigators are looking for to rescue kids when they are being exploited. Isn't there a way to block out their face or something but still keep the composition like that terrible alefantis chicken picture, the baby torso is blacked out. But you get the idea of not sex but deep power and intimacy the picture is just horrifying. It makes Calvin Klein heroinchic ads look like amature pictographers.
I still say I like how the rule is worded in the OP. Let Voat take care of Voat, and let the rest of the internet take care of their own house. As long as Voaters aren't doing anything illegal, let the rule apply to the d0xxing of fellow Voaters, because you sure as hell know Reddit isn't going to enforce people from doing the same. And you know we're eventually going to have to have that showdown when either TPTB@ Reddit, or the Powermod Cabal decides to finally put their foot down and try to stomp us out when we finally become too big of a threat to ignore. I'm not going to endorse d0xxing, but the possibility that any raiders from there may end up d0xxed in return (due to the rule specifically banning the d0xxing of Voaters) could be a nice damage-reduction/control-mechanism to pre-emptively discourage raiders...and make no mistake, Reddit, or their Powermods, will eventually strike at us. They are not a demographic to go quietly into irrelevance, especially since they saw firsthand how badly it went for Digg.
Like loli? I block all those. He tai is fine but explicitly saying loli is iffy.
Edit- to add, I upvoated because you have a good point . We don't want to spiral, but we don't want to use all our resources moderating a tiny population.
Drawings of sexualized minors are not illegal. Descriptions of sexual activity are not illegal. Pictures of clothed minors are not illegal. These are all free speech and safe outlet issues.
Your original post recommended shutting down the communities entirely, including those which have rules against illegal images. I agree that people caught posting or sending those in PMs should be banned, of course.
This is, incedentally, how a lot of d0xxing is done. Most information used to figure out a person's details like home address, is info they've already published on their own accord. It's simple detective work, from those basic pieces of data, to published d0x on /baph/ or other boards.
I'm not a fan of the loli content in RFH. However, to my knowledge, loli is still protected as artistic expression under the 1st Amendment, even if it is repugnant. What is Voat's policy re: loli content?
As much as I despise that form of content, I think forming a container-sub for it here, where they're allowed to post it, keeps it off of the rest of the web (And Voat, for that matter) that isn't as welcoming to the lolicons...and it's easy enough for me to block places like RFH to allow them their legal content without me having to see it.
tl;dr - Loli is repugnant, but between censoring legal content and supporting free speech/free expression, I have to come down on the side of free speech/free expression.
So dozing would be like if you told a friend you used the site and they where able to infer who you are based on your posts and they post your name, something you've never publicly posted?
What if the information was put together over a series of posts they made. Such a post where they revAL where their from another separate one with their name and last one with a phone number.
Is it doxxing if you put together what they already said?
I'm all for freedom of speech, so long as any combination of WORDS are allowed I'm fine with it. In this case even doxxing, maybe gives bans for giving someone's exact home address.
Pictures don't come under freedom of speech as far I am concerned.
We need a stance on content such as /v/lolicons and /v/ youngladies. While I know many of the users on this site find this content objectionable, we need to know weather it will continue being allowed under the sexualized content rule. To me, this seems like a VERY important line in the sand to be drawn. Regardless of peoples thoughts on this content, both of these subverses produce content that is generally considered legal under US law. Under at least my reading of your proposed rule, these verses would be banned. Doing so, to me at least, seems like a step down a VERY bad looking path. We need an official ruling that can be referenced, a statement on the admins views here.
The Canary Notice is 3 months old. Unless you update it with this announcement I am assuming you have had an issue. Also 30 days would seem to be a good update period or with each new announcement...unless of course you can't.
you are correct. amelek stated that there was an FBI investigation against him. it could be more users than just him, but i doubt he was lying. he might have been annoying, but he was honest.
I love the catch all policy! Generic named sub should allow all content in that genre.
Additionally please add ranking withinsub by "most down voted" to allow unpopular posts to be seen to stop brigading. Its one more simple index in the code easily done by adding - in front of the same code score used to sort "top".
can confirm, had a conversation that went off topic on young ladies deleted because it strayed into sexual territory about personal high school experiences with another user. had my comments deleted and was warned not to stray into that type of conversation on that subverse.
What do you all think about reddit trash? Free to do whatever in private subs like anyone else right? What about making draconian law but then only selectively enforcing them showing he's really just doing it to delete on his fee-fee's being hurt??
Fuck off, and stay out of his sub. If you want us to devolve into /b/ lite, run off the people making this sub somewhat fun for more high brow discussion
doxing. seems obvious. as a recent scottish blogger's info was revealed and he's having to stay low. unless that's fake news i'm unaware of.
community policy. it seems that there is a fine line when some mod or admin suddenly has it in for someone and just bans them for some kind of childish spat. so if there is a policy in place that allows for some kind of process to figure out if a.) is the ban necessary or b.) is there a mod just hatin on a poster, that'd be best case scenario. but for things like science, it might be better for the mod to have some say if for instance the idea of banning anything that doesn't have to do with science from being posted then that makes sense seeing that would be that subverse policy.
catch all policy. free speech. then again, there are times when there is a reason for taking action. but you know, free speech.
sexualized minors. who was it that said they know porn when they see it? is national geographic naked african children okay, but not a naked whtie child playing naked in the park? i've seen beautiful art of naked people of all ages. then again i've seen that show about making children into sexy models on the runway show. which is way worse in my opinion. it's a touchy subject. i don't think i'm lawyer enough to make a coherent statement. just draw a line in the sand and go with that.
These rules are good but need embedded in the technology. If we want Voat to live on past atko and putitout, it needs to be the way the site itself operates, otherwise new owners, new rules.
This is not a rule change at all, just a notice that existing rules will be enforced, so I will not cover it.
2.
Our Community Policy
Other than the default subverses, I do not believe that moderators should be restricted in their actions. Allowing moderators to do whatever they want is an important part of the "federalism" of Voat. This is not a huge issue anyways, as any mod who enacts overly restrictive rules will have to face the consequences of widespread disapproval and loss of their community to better subverses.
3.
Catch All Policy
My comments on #2 apply here as well. The autonomy of mods should be respected.
4.
Sexualized Content of Minors
I do not understand how various countrys' laws apply to this. I don't think I want to either. Voat does not have a huge team of lawyers for sorting out borderline cases, so if there is any content that is in a legal grey area in whatever juristiction is relevant, it should be deleted. But if you can't reasonably argue that a certain post or image is illegal, it should not be deleted. If we begin censoring any legal content, it's a slippery slope toward widespread censorship and SJW control.
All "rules" only work if there is a penalty phase. Your attempt to bring moderators under control is GREATLY appreciated. I would only point out that this community voting design is a GREAT idea. But there should be a painless, ideally automated, way to evict out of control moderators. This is the single biggest threat to Voat!
Dox Policy - I say yes only if it is about voat users. There are legitimate reasons why people would post personal info when discussing things. If that is included then I say no.
Our Community Policy - No. Can be easily abused by farm accounts.
Catch All Policy - Yes.
Sexualized Content of Minors - No. You worded it too vaguely. Also people brought up great points of situations that are not illegal but could easily be confused and grouped together with illegal content. If legal content is ever banned on this site then voat is comparable to reddit. At that point I leave voat.
I am seriously questioning any major changes to anything so near the canary revelations. How do we know this wont be manipulated by those that killed the canary?
Against? You might be going off on a little tyraid. You aren't making a lot of sense.
A child should not be used as a political/constitutional test instrument.. in a nation.
I'm pretty sure both sides do that, and are forced to once one side starts. You can't point that finger at one side or the other. You could probably point it more directly at the side that uses it as an entry way into censorship. They are the ones trying to use it as a political chip.
Good luck applying the Miler Test to many jailbait pictures. You'll get different answers and interpretations for just about every single picture. A girl in jeans and tshirt ok? What if the jeans are tight-fitting? Does that make it obscene? It gets to the point that it says more abotu the person applying the rule than the people you're trying to shut down.
If things like 16yr old girls in bikinis are obscene/wrong then we should probably ban all clothing catalogues and websites featuring 16yr old models. When wil you be happy? When everyone's wearing a burkha until the age of 21?
Banning legal speech based on majority opinion is why we left reddit.
Voat does not feel that this content increases participation or is conversational in nature, thus has little benefit and a lot of problems
This might as well be a direct quote from reddit's reasoning for banning all the subreddits that brought most of voat's userbase here. Either you let people say things you don't like or you don't.
If it's legal, let it stay. This eagerness to replicate the judicial system, only with hugely fewer safeguards and vastly more arbitrary enforcement will not serve anyone well.
There is no harm in cartoon porn of minors and it is not illegal at least in the United States. The rule on porn of minors should be very explicitly worded as to only apply to real life photographs/videos.
Seems like a good start to me, though the Catch All Policy seems easy to abuse at current level (obviously; it cites more thought will be given). Could be abused for trolling, stifle attempts to get things back on rails.
And calling jailbait immoral is quite funny beause 300 years ago people were marrying sixteen year olds and were happy to do so.
It's the other hand of moral relativism. Some moral relativists use it to excuse their behavior dispite it's harm to others. Some seek make a matter of morality where there is none.
There is nothing immoral about making logical arguments that minority classes happen to find inconvinient and there is nothing immoral about being attracted to what is biologically normal to be attracted to.
There is something immoral about living off of welfare, there is something immoral about using people's substance choices as an excuse to steal from them, there is something immoral about calling someone a freak who's normal.
Morallity is not a made up subject, but there are a lot of people who would like to make up a load of things around the subject.
My Grandmother was 14 when she married my Grandfather at 20 and they lived a happy healthy life together.
Some states allow you to be charged for a crime as an adult at the age of 10, 12 or 13, but a 14 year old can't choose to willingly participate in one of the basic activities of most living beings, sex.
300? Try my grandparents. Ok, actually both were sixteen, but marrying at sixteen is no taboo even if it became uncommon here. Generally it happens when a girl gets pregnant. I live in a poor country, so things may be different from your country.
But that opens up the possibility of unfavorable opinions (like anti-trump stuff in politics) would limit your ability to take part in the community and downvoat shitty content. It would promote the echo chamber you see in voats like politics.
Yep, I'm tired is not an argument and I hope @atko doesn't weigh these comment in for the count.
People's main argument is that they don't like it. Well, that's too bad, or they are going to get a boring site. It won't even work commercially because these people are never going to be tired of racism (I'm not saying that's bad) but they will quickly become tired of any alternative voice. Your userbase will be locked in. It won't be commercially successful and will be boring, all because people were tired of other people's speech. Anti-censorship gives voat the ability to change. User selected censorship will not.
These arguments should be ignored. I would mirror the db for these so you can identify and delete them without actually deleting them so you can weight only the real arguments. There are some on both sides that provide real arguments, but those are all the comments that should be considered.
Keep in mind feminists thing everything is rape. That's not even a label we put on them. It's called critical theory. They think everything is rape. The ability for people to slippery slope what they think is an instance of something they disagree with is nearly endless, and not some theory.
That's some reddit talk there. We have to ban it for the image of the site!!
That is censorship. At the very least your motives qualify as censorship.
Let's use that logic elsewhere. /v/pizzagate makes us look like loons, so for the image of the site.. /v/politics could use some improvements. Works per your argument. It's a non-argument. The image comes second after freedom.
Voat strictly prohibits all doxing (posting of personally identifiable information) of a Voat user. Your account will be immediately and permanently banned.
Makes sense
Moderators that decide to alter rules in a subverse that results in new content being deleted and/or users banned, where said content and/or users were previously allowed, and vice versa, must get community support before putting these changes into effect.
This should be specific to takeovers. Also, consider restricting it to generic subverses (once you work out how to define that). If someone works hard to build a sub, they should be free to change it's direction if they feel it's necessary.
Sub democracy is a bad idea in general, and all the arguments for/against it have been gone through many times before. It makes it way too easy for brigades to mob a sub and direct it wherever they like. As things stand they have to at least take over a mod account, without mods as a safeguard they don't even have to do that.
Moderators that control generic subverses must allow free conversation to occur and not stifle it, unless clearly defined upon subverse creation.
As you said, it needs to be defined, but sure. It'd help prevent squatting.
Voat prohibits the posting of sexualized media of minors (under the age of 18) or any media depicting minors in sexual situations. Your account will be immediately and permanently banned.
As you said, needs to be more thought through, but in general I don't think anyone wants this place getting shut down because of CP.
Some sense of twisted validation? Who knows. Don't try to apply your own logic to people with no logic at all. These are people who mutilate their genitals and shove things in their poopers.
Because when I joined this site we were leaving another site because of shit like this. It starts with banning inappropriate content which eventually turns into banning dissenting opinions and conspiracy theory/free thought. Yes, I would expect it to be higher.
I'm going to assume it's the first. Many of us are here because of the censorship at Eddit, and to imagine we're even debating the idea that we could censor a subverse based on their non-illegal content is sickening.
I guess it's what they always say: those who don't learn from the past...
There was a pic of a girl who wasnt more then 10 with pornstar makeup doing a smut magazines pose in underwear or bikini. As for the ond with a sleeping halfnaked toddler he just implied he was with the child and could do sexual acts with her easily.
What if someone posts a pic of someone's name and address from a phone book or their web page or social media page? If this person has made this information public knowledge by putting it out there it's not really doxxing to release it when anyone could find it themselves anyway.
The Dox and child abuse rules are no brainers and I agree 100%. Good job on the other rules, imho anything you can do to move closer to TRUE freedom of speech, the better.
Fuck you, /v/cheers is great. You just can't stand the idea of Voat having a sub dedicated to uplifting content that isn't controlled by your hateful narrative.
When a wave of us left after pao, hecho started posting pic of children on several different subs. Some where toddlers and half naked or in sexually suggestive poses. The rule was in the user agrement then but he was not banned. He has open ly stated that he is a pedophile and he has posted pic of children he lives with halfnaked asleep with sexual titles.
that is such bullshit. i dont even live with multiple kids or any toddlers. i only have a 3 month old, and the post youre probably talking about was from 8chan.
The title implied the toddler was a child you lived with. In the comments you implied you could do things with that child. I hope someone takes that baby away from you so you never have a chance to abuse it. You are sick and pedophilia is not freespeech.
ok. it was an 8chan link. youre gullible as fuck if you think that pic was of anyone i know. i wouldnt abuse my kid or any other kids for that matter. im not as fucked up as you think
You say this now, but just wait until some asshole doxxes you, and actually fucks up your real life. I'm sure that'd change your tune.
Maybe if people were responsible about it, and were actually shedding light on something that really should be illuminated -- but that usually isn't the case. It's usually done by assholes, just to fuck with people.
Child porn - ban children having sex with children, adults or animals. Require the genitalia of minors to be hidden. The genitalia being the parts of the body that are covered by the bikini of a girl and the swimming trunks of a boy.
Edit : counting feet as below a bikini is pushing the meaning of the words but I changed it to covered.
And so far you are allowed to with the owners permission. They may decide they won't allow it on their site. The you'll have to find somewhere else to whine. They owe you nothing!!
20 upvotes adds up over time. Its the alts they are constantly rotating to get above 1k ccp for an effective downvote account. Ever wonder why they are always changing accounts?
People aren't reading the dox policy part right. It says "of a voat user". If I want to post mark zuckerfucks phone number thats perfectly fine because he is not a voat user.
This is an outline very close to proposals I've shown a lot of support for, and come up with myself. I'm very happy to see you've listened to the entirety of the site and not just certain groups. Giving the community a way to have stake in control;ling their subverses is a massive step in the right direction.
Let them have something equal, but don't call it marriage. If I say "They are married" I don't want to have to add, that they are not gay. The word should imply man and woman.
I'd have to specify that they ain't gay, to make it clear. Otherwise the one I'm talking to wouldn't know which it is. It's confusing to make something new and call it something old. Like those stupid remakes of movies that use the exact same title as the original.
For the doxing policy, is linking to information posted to the internet considered doxing? I remember in the Quinnspiracy , where pictures posted by quinn were linked on reddit (pornographic in nature), and it was considered doxing for some reason .
Making Voat more like REDDIT kinda makes it obsolete. The whole point, I thought, was to allow everything but that which is clearly illegal. To be an alternative to reddit. Why would people want to be on voat if it's just going to become reddit?
Wow.. didn't think my suggestion was going to be taken seriously.. cool shit! Or mine was never seen and was already being considered.. yeah ill go with that.
I'm just explaining how shutting off all voting using the current requirements could leave subverses basically dead in the water if set too high too soon.
I'm surprised Tor is still up... though I wouldn't take the chance since clearnet and f2p was thought to be already hijacked and infected... who knows if one of those nodes now belong to the FBI
There are plenty of alts. They're not farming. Not everyone wants to post to a racist nazi shitpost doxxing group with their main account. Me personally is just one account and it's my main.
Where is the conspiracy? It's not a serious effort to all come together and upvoat. It's shitposts, it's humour. That's like saying pizzagate is an upvoat farm because people in the group are upvoating each other.
Rules AGAINST censorship. Now, that's true innovation.
But rather than encumbering the site with rules, you should simply embed the behaviour into the platform. E.g., make it harder for mods to delete content. That is one of the major sources of censorship on Wikipedia, for instance. It's just too easy to 'undo' other people's contribution.
That might not work too well, since the current requirements are for CCP amounts in a subverse. If you set even a tiny requirement before anyone can really comment there, then all posts there will also be worth 1 point for submissions and 0 points for comments. On the other hand, if a farm subverse creates a few bots, upvotes their comments on a new subverse a few times, and sets the CCP limit to some amount that they all have, then those active bots can upvote the comments of new bots, still creating the main problem of continued CCP farming.
sometimes people need to get called out. Where is the line between a dox and a news story? Alefantis? This could get out of hand quick so I'm actually against this rule and pro DOXing as well.
I for one would not mind a site wide ban on all pornographic material. I know for a fact you fuckers don't own the rights to 99% of the content you post nor do you have the model's explicit permission to share the images online. There are literally thousands upon thousands of sites that cater to that type of material out there and getting rid of it on Voat would end all the people trying to creep past the line of what is acceptable.
the same is true of news, especially archived news. there are thousands of places to get news articles, probably shouldn't be posting them on voat right? there are thousands of sites that cater to that type of material, getting rid of it on voat would end all the people trying to creep past the line of what is acceptable.
guess what? you don't draw the line of what is acceptable.
Doxxing shouldn't be all personal information, as many people put their information out there in the public, if so it is available for all and is free speech to post here. Doxxing should only be personal information that isn't available in the public. So for example if some one points at a public facebook profile they shouldn't be banned for doxxing.
If you feel that way, do what Voat did. Open your own site with your own rules or lack thereof. Who's forcing you to be here? I can read this, or any, sites rules and decide if I want to participate. Eddit and Voat owe you nothing, it's their site and can do what they want with it. Voat admins are at least seeking input, but the final decisions are theirs, like it or not.
Necessary? The world functioned, and will continue to do so, without either. They were desired. And Eddit decided to make money off of it. There is no requirement to participate in them.
if it has the same rules as reddit.
It doesn't. If (speculation) or when it does, you are just as free then as you are now to not participate. What is so hard about "these are sites that are privately run and can set what rules they want. Participation is wholly voluntary"? You are entitled to jackshit.
Why split my sentence in half? Oh right that way you can obfuscate my point.
Reddit exists, voat exists. The reason voat has a user base is because people wanted an alternative to reddit. When voat starts implementing rules that are the same rules that exist on reddit, there is no reason to use voat. And this is the first step to making a friendlier site that 'investors will be happy with.' Investors meaning adverstisers. Meaning say goodbye to the word nigger, fat people hate, jailbait, anything that could be considered offensive.
Be careful without doxing policy. Reddit abused it all the time. Post a phone number? Banned. Investigative journalism? Banned. But it only happened to people mods didn't like. Their favorites were allowed to break the rules.
CP should be banned, non-nude shouldn't. If it's legal, voat should allow it. That is the freest of speech.
I would suggest caution with the Community Policy in regard to future plans. A function where users can vote on the direction a community goes probably gave a whole stack of spammers and alt farmers a big wet boner. You could require a minimum membership time to vote, but even so it'd be easy to abuse. That bedwetter Spartacus can whip up a few hundred votes when he wants.
-Thank you for the update on the Canary Notice. It's appreciated.
-Rule Idea: Perhaps it should be a rule to have a maximum number of Voat accounts per IP address? A number that would allow multiple individuals to continue to post while on the same Wi-Fi, but low enough to help shut down CCP/spammers.
I think one account per IP or a limited number of accounts even is a little extreme. It might not be uncommon to have a "clean" account that you can tell friends, family, and employers about along with a porn account and a politics/general discussion account. Also college campuses could have thousands of users on a single IP as may VPN users who may also use their VPN's IPs to circumvent that rule (I think Private Internet Access for example has hundreds of thousands of IPs). Free proxies are another issue as they may be used to give a user more IPs or create a situation where multiple users are behind one IP.
There needs to be a strict definition of what constitutes sexualized material. You already mixed up the terms "sexualized" and "pornographic." A minor posing seductively in yoga pants would generally be considered to be sexualized content. It's also not illegal.
I personally don't think Voat should be morality police, and should permit any legal content. We have the block button if we happen to not like that type of content. Going above and beyond the legal requirements is unnecessary on a free speech website.
Like I said, not my thing, but as long as it's legal, I see banning it as a major step in the wrong direction. About a year before reddit purged FPH and many conservative subreddits, they purged anything involving teens.
Banning child porn and anything down that line is always the first step to full on censorship. First you make censorship seem like the right thing to do, then it's established as a thing to do and then you do it more and more and less and less people will care.
..and then you get to the point where video game publishers have to change the age of characters in games that are for all ages to begin with, because we just live in that type of crazy world.
He means if its uncovered, even if its supposedly innocent or 'art', it should be removed. If it is uncovered, but barely so, it should probably be removed.
There''s surely a difference between cartoons depicting sex with children and the annoyances you list. Hecho doesn't post sex with children imagery but most agree he is a pedi but it's ironic how many people defend /v/rfh which includes sex with children. Surely a line should be drawn . NO SEX WITH CHILDREN PEDOS
No. We're offending feelings the same way, not people. If your feelings are offended by cartoon pornography, my feelings are offended by the constant racism on this bullshit. But I'm the one defending banning racist and racist subs?
We need a strict definition of what constitutes doxxing.
A user voluntarily posts something to social media. Other users repost it to make fun of him or her. Is this doxxing?
A company does something people don't like. They post the publicly available contact information and tell users to call the company. Is this doxxing? What if they tell them to call and troll them instead of being civil?
A minor celebrity posts nudes to a public site. She then claims it was accidental and says they should be deleted. Is it doxxing to share those pictures?
Sexualized Content (of minors or even of someone who objects - IE revenge porn etc...) should be handled like doxing. Immediate or x timeframe specified removal of the content. There should be no recovery of the content via the deleted comment log though I suggest an internal log be kept for reporting to law enforcement. This is the sort of crap that can get a site shutdown and people can post it to places they don't normally frequent as a weapon. Voat needs to be very fast in responding to it.
Perhaps a report option that includes a "this is xyz content" that automatically hides it for review. If the user who reports it is wrong, the user to improperly reports it would get a temp ban.
Yup... "Jailbait" subs with legal pictures got banned first on Reddit and it was downhill from there. Continued with drawings, then creepshoots then fatpeoplehate, coontown and at the end there was a site wide censorship of wrong opinions.
Absolutely this. subs on reddit with legal content such as xsmall and xxxsmall got banned because people associated young looking or thin women with children, even though the mods there were very diligent in removing any questionable content. It wasn't even jailbait type stuff being posted, it was legally published porn with of age women that looked young. The moral police got to decide it was wrong because they associated those women with children because of their looks.
This is about right and the issue was forced by somethingawful goons disguised as shitredditsays. I think this latest voat debacle involving whitesomustberacist smells a lot like outside interference
What about any subverse under henrycorp's rule? Where he has already done exactly what the ex-mod of /chicago and /niggers was trying to do. Luckily that was exposed and delt with (thank you), while his rule is already established. And he has banned everyone and put crazy ccp restrictions so the voat community has no say.
It would be amazing to see a voat-wide discussion on this issue.
No. Those mods changed the direction of an existing sub. Henrycorp created subs and ruled them like a petty tyrant. The result was that almost no one used them and he had no power/audiance to speak of.
He created a sub called /guns? Please. Its been his gameplan all along to only have his agenda-driven content on a sub he knows would / should be frequently visited.
He doesn't own /v/guns, he owns /v/gunsarecool. Anyhow, it's not really an issue. if any new users go there, they see what a shithole it is, and never go back. Meanwhile /v/gunsreallyarecool shows up on the front page and they subscribe.
He's a reddit powermod who spams anti-GMO/anti-capitalist blogs. He squats on several generic subs over here and bans all dissenters, but he has to keep them in limited downvote mode to avoid his account being sunk under the weight of voats disapproval of spammers. As a result, his posts can't make the front page and he has almost no readers.
Catch All Policy - I think a voting system for mods and rules would help here if it can be defined in a way to prevent outside infiltration of a subverse community.
Let's make rule sidebars only editable when a vote is taken and the vast majority (80%+) agree on its implementation. In fact, let's make that the policy for implementing new mods, too.
Community Policies. A voting policy of some sort for mods as a community policy and for rules is needed - but any system will be gamed. I think an appeal to admins if regular users of a subverse think it is being gamed should be in place.
What about loli content? Are those considered minors, or is only media depicting real minors banned? Does text count as media? If someone makes a subverse that allows posts of lewd fanfics, would fanfics involving any minors be banned, or just living (or once living) minors?
On Doxing: Agreed. Doxing reported to a mod of a subverse should result in that content being removed within a defined amount of time and the deleted comment itself being redacted but still in the log.
Moderators should be allowed to consider not implementing excessive rules, even when the majority would like them -- sort of like the US Constitution guarantees certain freedoms despite the majority.
"Remember the fantastic internet sleuths during the Boston bombing?
No, can't say that I do. Everyone I knew was in the live thread and listening to the scanner feed. What I do remember is the hundreds or thousands of times people have referenced that small group of retards as a reason for [insert policy here], and it's hard to not see them as much the same.
I would suggest that letting retards dictate your course of actions in life might not be the best strategy out there.
I have personally had people, not here mind you, that attempted to dox me. They fell for the misinformation I placed out there. My crime, not supporting Michael Brown and supporting the police officers. The facts were on my side after all but it didn't matter, I didn't listen and believe.
Telling people to kill themselves would be censorship.
Hope you don't have to try to explain that to a judge. As i said, inciting someone to commit suicide is already illegal in many countries and Voat should ban it By inciting someone to commit suicide you are actively damaging Voat because if hecho (or whoever) decides to listen to you the admins here might get in serious shit since they did not prevent you from doing so.
This is the first one i found with a fast google search, it is also true in many other countries (including mine and i would guess in most Europe too).
Also, i don't agree that "words do not hurt people", there are many examples where words actually pushed someone to commit suicide (we discussed one of the cases just few months ago about a girl who pushed his boyfriend to kill himself, and he did so), this is why many countries have a specific crime for this.
The point though is this... by inciting someone to commit suicide you might actually succed... and if that happens the admins here might be the ones who will have to pay for it. I don't know where Atko or Puttitout live, but in Switzerland it is also illegal to incite someone to commit suicide https://www.rwi.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-5624-ccd2-ffff-ffffa664e063/assisted-suicide-Switzerland.pdf so they might actually be tried for something you did and is perhaps not illegal in your country. This is also why Voat should ban this kind of behaviour.
no, the canary is the post, the canary is dead. on the right panel above the thread is the update notice, that shows that the canary is dead. it is now illegal for the mods to create a new post that says the same thing.
No, that needs to be addressed first. It's a fundamental flaw of the proposal and if it can't be solved (and I don't see how it could be) then it shouldn't be implemented.
And what's the point really in blocking that but allowing shit like niggers, fat people hate, and other hate subs. If it is legal (e.g. non-nude under 18, but socially undesirable) then doesn't banning it go against the free speech of voat? Isn't it implicitly condemning one (jailbait) while approving of another (hate speech)? Its an interesting insight into what the two admins feel is OK and is not OK.
The flip side of posts containing jailbait type pictures is that the subs where these characters hang out become a place for them to meet each other, and then send the explicit/illegal stuff through private messages. I'm not sure what should, or even could be done about that, but I don't like the idea that this stuff is traveling through Voat, even in PMs.
Then don't fucking post in his sub. Block it and move on. I think it's a pretty cool sub, and I try to refrain from downvoting even shitty music that gets posted to that effect.
The blocking feature is really fucking handy. I don't want to see sports faggotry or pre-teen girls, so I block that shit if it appears.
Because the rules say "Politics~Hate~and~Religion~ Are Unwelcome.", therefore the assholes that make up the vocal majority of Voat's userbase can't post their hateful bullshit there, and they just can't stand the idea of Voat having a sub where they don't control the narrative. Everything HAS to be hate and negativity for them, otherwise they get triggered and scream "Censorship!" like retards.
Hmm... yeah, as long as he's deleting all political, "hateful", or racist content, that's fine by my standards. I always thought of censorship as... say, a board like /v/politics starts silencing a certain perspective (conservative, liberal, or whatever) but otherwise allows political discussion. That's censorship to me.
must get community support before putting these changes into effect
This sounds like a good idea in principal, however spammers and shills tend to have oceans of alts they use for vote manipulation and spamming.
Moderators tend to know the difference between legitimate members of a community and malicious alts, however that important distinction will be difficult to define in a rule or process, especially where voting in involved.
Yeah... democracy of any kind on subs would be a trainwreck. Too easy to exploit.
Fuck it, if it gets instituted I'd exploit it just to prove how risky it is. Better me taking over a generic sub then handing it back a day later than some SJW taking it just to delete everything.
I like the idea of having a community present arguments for or against a change and ask people to only acknowledge substantiated arguments based on reason rather than up or down votes or baseless personal endorsements.
One thousand up-votes or "Fuck Yeah!" comments aren't as valuable as a single argument based on informed and rational reason.
The idea is nice, the reality would not be, it's not a rule which could be enforced without making life easy on brigaders. Plenty of losers with too much time on their hands who can run an army of alts writing comments about how niggers should be about positive aspects of african american culture.
As it stands there's nothing preventing mods from making a sticky asking about rule changes.
As long nipples or genitals are NOT shown, we should let them stay. That's for REAL children and teenagers. It's a bit creepy but inoffensive. The racists are technically inoffensive too but you're gonna ban them too? I doubt you will.
If you ban /v/lolicon, I swear by God, Zeus, and anything else mankind ever worshipped, you're not gonna be any different than the reddit administrators. I will delete everything that belongs to me. There's no point in staying here if you also lack the capacity of differentiating reality from fiction like them.
And I will hate you for making me waste such a amount of time in this site. There's nothing I hate more than people who make me waste my time.
don't delete, change course and bring the real ship wreck that was allowed to stay. v/EfficientKilling i will bring the fire. instead of promoting autonomy of people to make choices about their bodies, i will embrace the tyranny in the way that rulers fear most. i will teach people how to kill in a very efficient manner. instead of posting lolis post acid/base reactions, post maps showing building entrances and exits, post directions on how to shape charges, etc.
lolis are downright harmless compared to some of the free speech out there.
And how do you define something is sexualized? By the intent of the creator or how it is used?
Let's create a sub /v/PrettyGirlsInAds ... and post images of pretty girls in advertisements (toy commercials, school supplies, modeling clothing, old JC Penny catalogs Jr Miss underwear section). I mean, its not sexualizing anything, is it? These are just advertisements that feature young girls under the age of 18. Completely legal and innocent. So so so very innocent.
@Puttitout this user poses a serious fucking issue (as many have expressed) on three's wording. you're creating the same grey area for slippery slope that reddit did. you're suggesting we kill the site. some have said.
I like it, but it lacks enforcement seeing how there is only 2 super mods. I think it should express that it is also the duty of subverse mods to enforce these rules, seeing as it's impossible to post dox dump on voat if no subverse will allow it. I'm aware this requires trust in mods, it appears as though corrupted mods simply do not make it far at all in voat so I don't see a big problem with giving them this duty.
Our Community Policy
Alright, nice. This hits it home. The rarity of this rule being broken requires little enforcement effort. This rule alone should justify any further /v/niggers or /v/chicago indecent. However the term "Out Community Policy" is to vague. I think a name such as "Moderator-User Relationship Policy" is more suited. With a name like that we could amend additional clauses to the policy regarding moderators and users.... which will likely occur sooner or later.
Catch All Policy
I don't like this one, but I get what you're trying to do. Perhaps rename it to "Generic Subverse Policy" and let it read something like
Subverses of generic topics and subjects (Especially topics and subjects that inherently have opinionated or debatable preference) must allow all subsets of the topic or subject in question to exist on the subverse.
As in the topic "vehicles" has includes subsets of each brand of cars. And those subsets can not be discriminated against. This also means "news" can not filter either liberal and conservative subsets.
Sexualized Content of Minors
Okay here we go. For questions like "what about nude culture?" or "what about loli?". You need to specify those subjects specifically because those questions are actually OK under US law.
Moderators that control generic subverses must allow free conversation to occur and not stifle it, unless clearly defined upon subverse creation.
Generic subverses shouldn't be able to leave any valid posts out. v/vehicles should never be allowed to censor Toyota posts, that should happen in v/vehicles2, v/Japan-hate, v/americancars or v/toyotahate. Like v/European is fine as is with their special rules, since v/Europe exists as the catch-all.
Don't make too many rules, the idiots trying to sabotage will find loop-holes. Right now, we have Atko & Puttitout being judge, jury and executioner, which is the best defence against creative trouble-makers, like that idiot who spent months building an image to take over a sub. We trust you two to take care of special cases.
No. I decided a couple weeks prior I didn't want to mod /v/niggers anymore. So if you think I give a shit about what happens or how things turned out, I don't really care. You all think I give a shit about this much more than I do, or that you all had some great victory over me. You didn't.
Prior to that, I was almost entirely hands off, the other four mods did almost all the work. I just set up the rules, and made the sidebar. I didn't even implement CSS (mainly because I thought it was a security risk). I knew eventually I'd hand it over because I didn't want my good name working for the Soros Foundation working in private industry to become associated with a racist internet forum.
Lol, no. You spent months crafting the fake image, then got... what, 2 days of trolling out of it? Even your SRS/SBBH buddies will laugh at you. You are a joke!
You got dealt with, got dealt with twice in one day. Beautiful. No loophole for you, haha!
I don't care too much about the other policies on here, but the one I'm most concerned with is the one on doxing. Please implement this, as I've had many dox attempts on me and these people just reign free while subverse moderators look the other way. There needs to be a clear way to report this stuff, along with a way to attack evidence (that can be confirmed later by looking at account logs, etc).
So you're going to allow brigading? If a larger sub like FatPeopleHate with 31,000 users decide to fuck with a smaller sub, like FatPeopleAcceptance with 100 subs, you're going to allow them to do that?
Because that is what ProtectVoat did to /v/Chicago and there has been zero repercussions of that. Once CANCEL-CAT-FACTS made his post in ProtectVoat about what the mod of /v/Chicago had done (even though there were zero rules stating what he did was wrong), he had gotten brigaded by numerous users from that sub. Those individuals hadn't participated in the sub prior to that. Including one or more people who repeatedly created accounts to avoid bans with the sold purpose to force through harassment and intimidation what they wanted (again, despite there being absolutely no written rules or guidelines for that mod to know what he did was wrong).
And on that note, what about ban evasions?
Also, it seems completely unfair to WSIMBR (cough) that you're defining these rules after the fact of applying them against him. I would encourage you to look up 'ex post facto' laws. That was convicting a person of a crime one day, and the next day actually making what they did a crime
I have a feeling you are referring to the comment raid by /u/kimmykitten amongst others who posted comment spam to put pressure on the mods. This isn't so bad compared to what could happen if we had sub voting as some are suggesting.
That's not "brigading" obviously people who frequent certain subs feel the same way about certain issues and may voat the same way. You're basically saying people subbed to some verses shouldn't be allowed to voat how they want lest someone else do the same.
I think posts saying "go to this thread and voat like this" should be discouraged. But not removed. This ain't reddit. Anyway I didn't see anything like that in your examples.
That's not "brigading" obviously people who frequent certain subs feel the same way about certain issues and may voat the same way.
That exactly is brigading. If someone in FPH posts something like, "That douchebag mod of FPA has a new fattty girlfriend." And the members of that sub, without ever having stepped foot in FPA prior, flood that sub with posts and comments attacking that person and the sub ... that is brigading. Brigading doesn't need to be explicitly commanded in order for it to be brigading.
Thats bullshit and you know it. Nowhere were these guidelines posted, so he had no idea the shit storm that erupted. And instead of brigading the site, he should have been told and let him reconsider. Absent any guidelines or rules like this, the community attacked him and tried to use force and intimidation to get him to change which is bullshit. It is just as bad as what he did, and even worse, as it was being done by the masses. Vigilante justice is bullshit justice.
He tried to improve his sub and had good intentions but went about it the wrong way. ProtectVoat however is just a hub to brigade other subs and force their will onto other people through intimidation and harassment.
It's the difference between manslaughter where you kill a person accidentally through reckless behavior, and murder when you kill another human being with malice aforethought. And there is a reason those two crimes are punished differently.
Yes to all beside the last one. If something is not illegal then it should stay... or we should ban women in bikini because "we do not feel that this content increases participation or is conversational in nature" and also is illegal in many muslim countries.
All of this looks great. Thanks for being involved again.
I think a (soon to be) big problem is point farming subs. Lately there's been new ones that don't even pretend to be an actual sub about anything other than one user building up alts. And with downvoating restrictions users don't even have any way to fight against it. It's only a matter of time before actual users are getting massively dv'd by one malicious user with many alts. I don't think users would mind a rule against subverses that exist solely for that purpose.
I also would like there to be a way to limit alts. We have anon subs. So throwaways aren't needed. They're only good for one troll to multiply their voting power which essentially makes legitimate users voats worthless.
I'm not sure what is even possible to do in addressing these. And I understand if you are thinking about it but don't want to show your hand regarding solutions. It would be nice to hear that this is a problem under consideration.
Dox, the Banhammer, a question: what if I were to indirectly dox another user or myself? I do believe there were a couple aspiring writers who used their given name in their username. isn't that doxxing?
I could tell you my username in this post or say which sub I mod and indirectly give away my anonymity without realizing it. Start bitching about the warrant canary (looking at you mr.sanegoatiswear) or pull a mh101 (with the keyboard warriors LOL!!!!) or pull an amalek (an amalek)
Does that warrant a banhammering? These are issues that will need addressed in the future because they've already happened in one form or another
wait how is /v/canada censored? I've posted plenty there, and it's pretty dead, but I've never been censored by the mods. Plenty of downvotes of course...
but you've got rules like the severe heavy voting-restricting rule already written into voat's code on git... just written to "false" so it's not activated...
why if you're always so over worked, busy, and doing voat for free....
did you have time to code this if you weren't going to do anything without the community's consent?
At the time of subverse creation, there should be a fully outlined "what is this subverse for" section. If the mods do not adhere to it them they are subject for removal.
The problem with defining the subverse in the sidebar is that it can be changed at the owners whim.
Also, if we look at reddit, the mods of r/news don't allow local news posts (except for those that might push their agenda). To use your example of v/vehicles, there should not be any ambiguity when it comes to what constitutes a vehicle.
Moderators that decide to alter rules in a subverse that results in new content being deleted and/or users banned, where said content and/or users were previously allowed, and vice versa, must get community support before putting these changes into effect.
How is this realistically going to be determined? Voting is not an accurate way to gauge user opinion, and what about very small subs or subs that have almost no discussion on them at all, such as music or porn subs?
Moderators that control generic subverses must allow free conversation to occur and not stifle it, unless clearly defined upon subverse creation.
Why? Any moderator that does this is witch hunted by the community to the point where they can't participate on the site anyway. This is going to make deletions even harder for moderators.
Voat strictly prohibits all doxing (posting of personally identifiable information) of a Voat user. Your account will be immediately and permanently banned. We have been very poor at handling dox issues but we cannot allow this to happen going forward.
If this is the case, will you be going back over previous doxxing episodes and banning the people involved?
My worries are that the doxing and minors section will be used to shut down /v/pizzagate and (more likely) the other pizzasgates. Reddit has already used those two to do that anything posted about Alefantis or anyone else (allegedly) involved is "doxing" and any photos are "sexualized content". I think that there has to be some explicit divider between "this guy sucks, here's his phone number" and "here's something I think is newsworthy, including that this person owns this business at this location" situations. (I also think the sexualized content thing is mind boggling. "There aren't any pedos here, but you can't post the photos that they've posted because they sexualize children." Wha?)
I'm down with the voting on rules and mods thing if we can finally do something about the vote farming / botting.
You him? Even if not, thank you. Many of us could give a shit what people do in their privacy of their homes but having shit like that here was too much. This is the first time I have ever pinged hecho. But I agreed with all those who did.
What happens if someone gets doxxed and then it's later discovered they're a Voater? If they get doxxed (or threatened with doxxing) and create an account to shield themselves?
We can only control what happens on this website. That means the only way this rule can work is doxxing accounts is banned. Tying a real person to an account the other way around would still be the same thing. If you're thinking of a news article, we can't control news. I've never seen "Steve Jobs, otherwise known as 420_blaze_it_xxxxx___ on reddit," on a news story.
Do we not assume many who are the unhappy subjects of Voat users' investigatory or editorial subverses are not also Voat users lurking here? If true, might it be important to clarify such a rule to allow publicly available info to be Voat published?
This. As long as what Voaters are doing isn't illegal, the rest of the Net can go fuck itself. Take care of our own house, and the rest of the internet can do the same. Reddit trying to play Savior of the Interwebz is part of the reason for their decline.
Who owns VOAT?... Who is investing in VOAT? Are there NEW investors? Is it considered DOXXing when there are no records iinvolved (legal definition). When a jackass has two personalities online is it DOXXing to reveal the connection?.. This removes a SHIT TON of journalism out of citizen journalism.
that is one of the many problems with laws against child porn in the first place. say your neighbor is fucking their kid and you see it though an open window. you take a picture to prove it. guess what? you are now guilty of manufacturing child porn. if you show that pic to the police there is a chance you spend over a decade in prison for having done so.
Voat strictly prohibits all doxing (posting of personally identifiable information) of a Voat user
The Doxxing rule only applies to other voaters. Not to politician's associates. You'd only get in trouble if you said @ILoveKids is John Podesta and here is his phone number. Just posting Podesta's number wouldn't break the rules.
public figures are generally exempted from privacy laws. that's where the line should be drawn, not investigations. info that people (anybody) willing post to the internet (e.g social media posts) is also generally exempt from privacy laws.
What is a public figure? A large number of people that might rightly end up part of community investigation may not be a public figure in most people's book.
And the, "public information posted by them" exception is essentially what doxing is. On one hand the public figures rule would be too strict, and the social media rule would be under strict to the point of making the rule moot and applied selectively.
It's just easier to forget any doxing rule and say we're allowed to discuss people on the internet. Which is pretty fucking reasonable. Also literally censorship in by pretty much the most obvious definition.
While i do not look at this material, nor do i support it, i do vividly remember the /r/jailbait debacle. Keep this in mind when making decisions on the matter.
I am usually all about "just create another sub and do what you want" but after the Chicago crap I think some things should be considered the same as default subs. Those would obviously be subs named after cities, states, countries, etc. Meaning no stupid rules for them.
I have no idea if it even exists, but does this mean that /v/jailbait or another sub with legal and clothed under age girls would be banned? Because I recall the great purge of legal pictures of teenage girls on reddit to be the beginning of the end. As long as the content is legal, censorship is censorship.
For the first one: about doxing, you should probably hash that one out, a little more, before enacting it.
For instance, maybe I know someone else on Voat, and in casual conversation, mention their name, or something -- nothing malicious, just a mistake. That can be taken as against the rules, and become a permanent ban because I have a friend. If I had a week, I wouldn't have enough time to go over all of the exceptions which could be taken out of hand, and ruin this site.
I agree that doxing needs to be dealt with, but the way you've worded it makes it to obtuse, and too eligible for abuse.
The two rules about moderators: I absolutely love it. Maybe set more defined rules, as in:
How long mods have to take to get community involvement -- a week of discussion is different than five minutes.
What do you define as a "generic" subverse? Again, being so obtuse, this can be prone to abuse, as any subverse can be both generic, and specific -- depending on how you want to spin it.
If you leave these too vague, they'll be abused, like the way past mods have tried to abuse Voat rules before. People are cunning, and you have to be just a little more cunning.
what is and is not "sexualizing minors"? i have seen the term "sexualize" used to describe pretty much anything that be construed as "attractive" (a picture of a young attractive girl in a bikini is "sexualized" the same type of bikini, the same pose, but a fat old woman, not sexualized). can i post images of non-nude girls not in sexual poses but are otherwise simply pretty people? also can i post cartoon stuff that is blatant true sexualization?
i want to know the lines i am living inside of. i don't intend to break your policy, but at the same time i believe that censorship is a creeping issue and a slippery slope. the latest slips have been because of vague statements such as "sexualize". i would agree that depictions of sex acts are "sexualized", but i would disagree on damn near everything other than that.
anyone who is so worried about sexual orientation and not action is a thought police which is the slope to totalitarian slavery. you may be upset at pedo's but that doesn't make you better than them.
And there's the first pedo speaking up. As far as action? Way ahead of ya. I've sent many to jail, and I'd vote for castration at the very least. If you're going to victimize a child you deserve it back ten fold.
i've talked girls into prosecuting people who coerced them myself but only two. but i still advocate for autonomy. there are those who push people into doing things they don't want to do (which is wrong), and there are those who have unsanctioned but otherwise healthy relationships (where the law is wrong).
How in the ever-loving fuck can you think a relationship with a girl that isn't old enough to know better can be a healthy relationship? Pedos are always trying to justify what they do because they don't see it as wrong. Not once do they consider the long term effects it will have once she grows up & realizes what that relationship actually was. This is why it's fucked up. Only pedos defend it.
i don't if they aren't old enough to know better. i only am accepting of it if they know what they are doing. i just believe that IQ is a better indicator than age is. as for long term effects, studies have been done on those things, maybe you should look into them.
for the dox stuff be careful of policing jokes and trolling. More user control of subs is good. catch all is good. Degeneracy is bad so I support zero tolerance on the last rule
humans are born as sexual creatures with sexual organs. degeneracy is when moral authoritarians feel it is their god given right to enslave other people and force them to live by their own personal moral code. what is worse, allowing someone to make dumb decisions or enslaving them and taking away all their freedom so they can't make dumb decisions?
out of what? consideration for their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? i don't agree that they should be left out of it. i don't support your type of degeneracy.
if they can understand they can make informed consent. if they can't understand then they can't give informed consent. informed consent is the line of morality on that. legal consent is the line of the law. many laws are wrong and are kept in place by propagation of myths and indoctrination. "developed" is bullshit word. it means different things. if their brain isn't developed doesn't that mean that it should be legal to abort them? in the medical terminology the brain finishes development right before it goes into the atrophy phase, that is probably the context you are speaking about. in reality the brain continues to change throughout the life and is not finished "developing" until death where it starts to decay.
what is important is if they can understand the decision they are making, and the likely potential outcomes of that decision and to understand the risks of that decision. such a decision is considered an informed decision. to agree to such a decision is to give informed consent.
most adults can't make informed banking decisions, because they don't understand economics. they are allowed to give legal consent to such decisions anyway. i don't advocate for that regarding children and sex. i believe it is abuse of adults by the banking sector.
i don't rationalize child rape, i advocate change in law to remove the term "rape" from being unjustly applied. an informed decision to engage in sex is a legal technicality where the law is wrong. i like how the laws in the netherlands were in the 1980's and how the laws in germany are now.
stop trying to frame people doing things that you don't like as rape.
yeah and minors lack the knowledge, understanding, and the frontal lobe development to make such a determination you sick fuck just kill yourself already
many states and countries disagree, so do i. i hope one day to see the laws of the US to be similar if not exactly the same as the laws of the netherlands in the 1980's.
The rule about minors: now, I don't want to play devil's advocate, but I feel like I have to. There are subverses here that tread that line, REALLY closely. I don't like it, and I don't like what they stand for, but I just blocked the subverses. But, just because I (and others) don't like it, that doesn't mean we should ban people/subverses for something in a "grey area."
On top of that, these subverses seem to be pretty good at self-regulating themselves. They probably don't want to get banned, and banning them will churn up another Eddit/Pao situation here on Voat. If it's legitimate CP, then ban away, as that's illegal... but rendered/drawn media isn't real, and falls into that "grey area" I don't think anyone should touch.
Hell, women in bikinis are a "grey area" in some countries... the only difference here is that there are fewer of those countries, and thus that "grey area" is smaller. Would you ban any subverse that has images, real or not, of a woman who isn't in a burka, because it is a legal "grey area" somewhere? That's just censorship.
Unless it's illegal, I'd say to leave them be. Once something truly illegal pops up, take the appropriate steps to mitigate the problem. This stance has worked so far, and coupled with the "block" button, seems to be the best middle-road.
Hell, women in bikinis are a "grey area" in some countries... the only difference here is that there are fewer of those countries, and thus that "grey area" is smaller. Would you ban any subverse that has images, real or not, of a woman who isn't in a burka, because it is a legal "grey area" somewhere? That's just censorship.
Voat is incorporated in the US and is subject to US law.
"Cyber bullying"/harassment laws being put into place I expect. Site operators may be held liable financially due to lawsuits related to it also. Probably best to have a policy in place to help mitigate that.
Secrecy is the way in which criminals avoid accountability.
I believe that posting someone's information that allows the public to tie them to criminal activity, when law enforcement is in on it or ignores their crimes, should be fair game.
Example, CTR is taking foreign money to astroturf the Internet without registering as foreign agents. It is illegal and technically treason. That should be exposed and prosecuted. If not in court, then in the public arena because there is no other avenue for justice.
Example, CTR is taking foreign money to astroturf the Internet without registering as foreign agents. It is illegal and technically treason.
What law is being broken from being paid by a govt to post shit on the internet? What law says Saudi Arabia can't pay me $50 a day to go stand on a street corner talking about how much I love Saudi Arabia?
Also, the doxxing rule only says that you can't dox a Voat user. If you have their personal information and proof of crimes, you can post that, you just can't ping them when you do. If you say "John Smith of Alaska is a pedophile and the sheriff's dept won't prosecute him cause they're pedos too.", that's fine, just don't include John Smith's Voat username.
Actually, attempts to influence policy and taking foreign money is a no-no. They call it the Voorhees Act and failure to report as a foreign agent is treason.
I can't find anything about a "Voorhees Act" in google, duckduckgo, or any other search engine. It seems to me to be a violation of free speech if someone couldn't give praise to a foreign government without being accused of treason.
Also, foreign agents can't commit treason by virtue of being a foreign agent. Treason is only committed by those owing allegiance to the United States and if you are a foreign agent, you don't owe allegiance to the United States.
My understanding is that the investigation extends to pivate individuals and that prohibiting such investigation would kill it. If the public figures operate via private individuals they would be pretty well be protected against investigation.
Personally that would be a grey area if it included personal info about someone other than themselves. For example, divulging an agents name and work related info would probably be fine. Divulging their personal home information probably not. Mainly because the second one brings in the possibility of doxxing their family and other relatives who may not be involved at all in their work bullshit. Not sure how the site operators would feel about that.
My feeling is that the Supreme Court, with their ruling regarding the Pentagon Papers, makes it clear that this type of information is allowed to be shared (see tabs)...
Of course, the reality of ending up in court over it and having to pay a $25,000 retainer might be crappy, but I feel like Voat shouldn't be held responsible for what users post... especially when there are only two people running the show.
That canary notice is 3 months old. It says refer to last edit time, which is exactly when? This only tells me that as of three months ago the canary was alive.
Voat prohibits the posting of sexualized media of minors (under the age of 18) or any media depicting minors in sexual situations. Your account will be immediately and permanently banned.
I mean, stuff like drawings may or may not depict a child, but who is decide if the person in the drawing is a minor? If it's only concerning real life individuals, than I'm for it.
Sorry but v/loli offers nothing of value to the community, toddlers and small children particularly, even drawn, in sexualized scenarios is of no use, causes controversy, grosses people out, and brings allot of unwanted negative attention to everyone here from the creators to the participants.
Besides, isn't there a site or two dedicated to such like Deviant Art? This site is about maintaining free speech and open dialog, not seeing who can be sexually enticed by images that are clearly meant to resemble toddlers or small children.
Sorry but v/loli offers nothing of value to the community...causes controversy, grosses people out, and brings allot of unwanted negative attention to everyone here from the creators to the participants. Besides, isn't there a site or two dedicated to such like Deviant Art?
Let's try this with a different subject, shall we? A flip of the script, if you will...
Sorry but v/niggers offers nothing of value to the community...causes controversy, offends people, and brings allot of unwanted negative attention to everyone here from the creators to the participants. Besides, isn't there a site or two dedicated to such like Stormfront?
Don't call yourself someone who respects free speech and open dialog, then turn around and advocate censoring speech and discussion you don't like. You'd pitch your shit if it was /v/niggers we were talking about doing this to, but just because it's legal content that you don't like and find disgusting, you'd ban it...you make me sicker than the lolicons do, and that's saying something. And you consider yourself a Voat Goat? Pathetic...
Look at all the pedos in this thread .... fucking unreal... and this from a 'community' that hates muslims so much because they are pedos .... pot meet kettle.
Seems pretty solid to me. Look through this thread, you can't tell me grown men are looking at photos of little girls because they like the 'fashion' .... it's a sexual thing plain and simple, which boils down to pedo shit.
Loli content is literally a victimless crime, and not even a crime, at that, which just makes it victimless. You're trying to pull guilt by association. And you still haven't explained why cartoons are protected under the 1st Amendment, if you want to claim they aren't protected speech.
I never said anything about protected speech, free speech or otherwise, I just said they're pedos.... which is pretty clear. I haven't called for anything to be banned, just saying, they're pedos... when you are looking at pictures of kids for sexual pleasure, cartoon or not, it's pedophilia. Call it what it is.
So what? The lolicons aren't hurting anyone except themselves. What do you care if a bunch of losers want to sit around jerking it to lines on paper instead of going out and finding themselves a real woman?
So I can't call them pedos ? ... does their harming someone directly have something to do with what I can say to them ? They get upset being called pedos but it's exactly what they are. As I'm sure you are well aware free speech doesn't protect anyone from being called out, it just means you won't be arrested or silenced. If they don't like being called pedos then they shouldn't do pedo shit.
You enter a discussion thread about implementation of rules, namely whether or not to ban certain content, and then you want to complain when your comments get viewed in that context.
I see, so you're just a troll, then. What's the matter, CTR not paying you enough, now that the election is over and those Soros-bucks have dried up?
Everyone who disagrees with you is a shill, paid, or a troll right . . . makes perfect sense. I didn't complain about anything, I just clarified what I meant.
It's what makes Voat different from Reddit. Go to Reddit if you get offended easily. Sorry. Let me rephrase that slightly. Fuck off to Reddit if you get offended easily you fucking nigger scum. It's because Voat isn't heavily policed that it is attractive in the first place. Don't turn this place into Reddit. Retard.
So we should ban all drawings? I mean, who decides what looks like a minor? If someone complains that think "think" it's a minor, does that content get removed? The issue a rule that can be abused heavily.
No drawing is not "speech", the rule is quite clear, no "sexualized media of minors (under the age of 18) or any media depicting minors in sexual situations".... I doubt if someone posted an image of teen girls playing volleyball in bikinis would be a problem, unless someone is circling where their bikini has slipped offering up a creep-shot.
Love the Slippery Slope fallacy, but the people in charge of this site, Atko & PuttItOut, or whoever they've got things delegated to are pretty solid and consistent. Consistent in allowing actual free speech, dissent, etc.. Regardless the subverses that are now potentially threatened are toxic to the site, on a multitude of levels, worse than anything else. And when you can go to some of those subverses described, and chase links, and find allot of previously available images were removed from the host site for being questionable, it's a rather strong indicator that what was posted wasn't quite legal.
Could the rule be abused, every bit as much as the other side of the spectrum and perverts trying to push the envelope further and further and posting ever more pornographic or suggestive material depicting minors. Though while the side that wants to push the envelope has a long rich history of such, the controllers of this site do not.
I do feel you on the fact that some 20 year olds may look like 16 year olds, & vise versa, but why not just go to a porn site, which the internet is still about 85% composed of, and check that crap out there?
Plenty of "Free Speech" out there to choke your chicken to.
Brooke Greenburg age 18 what if i were to draw a picture of her having sex? it might look like a baby being raped, but really it was a picture of an 18 year old adult.
How about giving people the ability to fully block the people spamming them. People like amalek and spartacus upvote so they can shitpost at will. You are moving towards involving the community more and removing mod influence so embrace it and give people that power. Then all you need is janitors to come along and remove the rest later. Yea some people dont like the block button because they mistakenly think most will use it to hide dissenting views but its more about giving people content control. Maybe even investors would like that too.
How so? Do you want to limit free speech @Puttitout? Voting on voat is surely free speech if liking on facebook is protected speech in the U.S. don't abridge it.
The law says you can't be fired for making political statements on FB. No-one is getting fired here, the idea is to limit abuse of the CCP threshold, which was originally implemented in order to limit spam and brigading.
No, "censor all to stop a few" is not my argument. That is a straw man. And there is no slippery slope implied by my comment, but, clearly, you are engaging in false equivalence: you're implying that implementing a CCP threshold is the same with regard to free speech as firing people for liking a political candidate on Facebook. They are nowhere near the same, and implying that one leads to the other (if that is what you were in fact implying) is setting up a slippery slope fallacy.
How so? Do you want to limit free speech @Puttitout? Voting on voat is surely free speech if liking on facebook is protected speech in the U.S. don't abridge it.
Because SJW shills from Reddit are coming in here and destroying Voat. Like they did with /v/niggers or /v/Chicago. Moderators aren't the ones to decide what kind of content should be allowed on a verse, the users will decide for themselves.
The thing is though is ; The admins have given a very anti censorship feature in the ability to view deleted comments and submissions. That is a big difference from reddit.
It can't be done. Folks will learn to work whatever system you come up with. You'll just end up wasting resources trying to make the system work that would be better spent dealing with problems as they come up. Short of some sort of verifiable voter registration system, you can't have a fair system.
Voat has no need for it anyway because we've already voted for the site owner/admins by creating accounts here. It's great that you want to ask for feedback, but delegating some decisions down to the community will be counterproductive at best, but most likely will end in disaster. There's a reason democracies fail.
Voter fraud would be one of my concerns with this as well. We see tons of shill accounts and fake accounts and alts on here, upvoat farms etc...
It seems to me it would be very difficult to distinguish real users from the inevitable multitude of fakes coming in and trying to manipulate the site.
Perhaps a polling function that has a similar CCP requirement like downvoting does, so the owner or moderator of a subverse can configure a poll to receive this community feedback?
For this to work I would highly suggest a rule and/or action being put in place to remove subverses that are clearly CCP/SCP farms, so that poll manipulation would be kept to a minimum. In this case a CCP/SCP farm refers to a subverse whose main function is clearly to illegitimately increase the CCP/SCP of users who participate in them and who additionally may also have extremely CCP requirements for downvoting users and content within.
Additionally if such a feature would to be implemented, past polls should be unable to be deleted or altered once launched and they should be browsable as long as that subverse continues to exist.
I don't think it will be algorithmic, at least at first. It is usually very clear which way the community wants to go. The default action (if there isn't a clear direction) should always be to not change.
Because then people begin to witchhunt like you are right now. if you want to do something about pedophiles I know a pizza parlor in DC where you can find a bunch of em.
Exactly. Take into account nude beaches and nudist colonies. Families go there together and family photos are taken. There are sometimes naked children in the photos just like everyone else in the photo is naked. This is not pornography because the focus of the photo is not explicitly on the private areas of the child. This is also why nudist colonies go to great lengths to know who tries to become a member before being allowed inside. If photos at a nudist colony were cp they wouldn't be listed on search engines.
moral authoritarianism is more degenerate than virtually every activity. it is desperately clinging to regression and belief structures that were outdated over a thousand years ago.
Nude images of minors is not porn or illegal. Nude images of minors engaged in a sexually explicit situation IS illegal. A pic of your nudist family at a nudist beach is not porn. A pic of... I'm not going there. You get the idea.
I personally do not condone of either. Just pointing out the law.
Well, should we tailor to all countries? Some countries, photos of women who don't wear burkas are considered pornography, and punishable by law.
Should we ban all subverses which host images which could be illegal in any country? What about images against Kim Jung Un -- those are illegal in North Korea. What about cartoons of Muhammad -- those are illegal in many middle-eastern states.
If we start banning things because you aren't responsible enough to block the content yourself, we will end up banning everything.
I do have all NSFW subverses blocked, so I have taken steps.
But surely we can all agree that pictures of naked kids is just wrong? Just like we all agree that rape and murder is wrong? Do we really not have a common base morality we can all agree on?
You can't be a little bit pedo, you know. It's binary.
Oh, I agree that the images are wrong. I don't like what these subverse contain, But I also recognize banning them, based on their fully-legal content, is just as wrong.
Exactly what I'm saying. Just because you don't like their content, or what they stand for, or what they're about, doesn't mean they're doing anything illegal.
And to even insinuate that it's a good idea to ban them because of those first three points, ignoring the fourth/last point, is not only scary dangerous... It's wrong.
You might not think it, but I'm pro free speech too.
I don't see how posting pictures of naked kids is a question of speech though. I think there is an order when it comes to morality - murder is worse than shoplifting for example. Framed in this way, I think that pedos posting pictures of kids is worse than stopping them.
Nude images of minors are a "gray area" in parts of Europe, until Sharia fully takes over, but nude pictures of minors in the United States are illegal.
Great point. Unless you want to spin off different versions of Voat for different countries, Voat has to adhere to the strictest standard or risk being banned.
Actaully that's the oposite of a good idea. I guess we should comply with NK, China, Australia, UK, and India that have porn bans or something just short of it. We should also censor everything to comply with Japan.
The beauty of the internet is you comply with one areas rules and tell everyone else to suck it. To do otherwise would be madness. It's not how the internet works. Single country compliance is how the internet works so why would Voat of all places censor more than what the rest of the internet does? That would be antithetical to what voat is. Apply the minimum of the law or anything else you are complicit with censorship.
Find a locality where Voat exists and follow only those rules. International compliance is bullshit.
By the way /v/niggers wouldn't be internationally compliant.
nobody gives a shit about you whitey fags, keep your nigger shit out of here. nobody gives a shit about you fatophobes, keep your hate out of here. nobody cares about you antisemites, keep your racism out of here!
if nobody cares or gives a shit, than everything should be allowed so long as it is legal. don't like some sub? there is a block button for a reason.
Found the eurofag pedo. That's what the rules are giving you. A situation where nobody gives a shit, except where it's illegal. Guess what? Civilised countries don't want you fucking pedos.
lies, pretty baby the movie is quite legal in the US. nudity is legal, nudity in lascivious poses or that is centered on the genitals is illegal in the US. lascivious poses are illegal regardless of clothing, and images centered on the genitals when the clothing is sheer is also illegal.
that is beside the point. legal pictures should be allowed. i am fine with no nudity, but even facebook allowed the napalm girl in vietnam to be posted after the public backlash, even when she is clearly nude.
And 'such pics' are illegal. Just because they exist does not make them legal. Is it legal to live nude in a nudist colony? Sure. Is it legal to post photos of nude minors anywhere? No. No it is not.
No they're not illegal. Family photos at a nudist colony where children are present are not illegal. As long as the focus of the photo is clearly NOT on the private areas of a child it's OK. I think all of the major search engines would be removing their nudist colony links if it were illegal don't you?
Actually it is as long as it is not lewd or lascivious. There are mainstream movies that depict nude children. The original Superman comes to mind. There is a scene where the 3 year old boy comes out of the pod after it lands and he is totally nude, full frontal. It was show in theaters and on broadcast TV.
voat is loaded with the americunts that hate nudity just like they hate all sexuality. they preach not to watch porn, they consider it to be a "health hazard" now. they have a movement of abstaining from masturbation called "no fap". there are tons of people opposed to prostitution. the only way they could get more uptight about sex is if they were damned muslims. they are sexually repressed as hell, which is why the churches are filled with so many child molesters.
they be like, "don't post that pic it is immoral", meanwhile they are fucking their neighbor's kid.
That is something I never understood about American film/television. Nudity/sexuality is barely acceptable, but ultra violence is perfectly acceptable. What the fuck is up with that? You'd think it'd be the other way around, if anything.
Somewhere out there, there's a creep that is sexually attracted to virtually anything you can think of. It's someones fetish, no exceptions. No reason to ban everything, though. Or do you want to ban that pony show people where into a few years back, too? http://uploads.ungrounded.net/alternate/735000/735840_alternate_7832.720p.mp4 (NSFL)
Sexualizing sure, but posting a picture of my daughter in a Halloween outfit isn't. Seems unfair to ban posting pictures of kids entirely, but there's certainly something that needs defined there.
No nude minors. If you must take it one step farther then say no minors in underwear. However, sometimes underwear is hard to distinguish between a bikini.
Edit: Drawings of sexualized minors is legal in most of the US. Thus, it should be allowed on Voat.
ON DOXXES: ATKO HAS SAID THAT DOXING A USER BY PUTTINGTHE INFO ON VOAT IS DELETABLE AND BANNABLE, BUT HAS STATED THAT LINKING TO A DOX OFF OF VOAT (IE THE DOXXING INFO IS NOT ON VOAT SERVERS, JUST A LINK) THEN THAT'S OK.*** WHAT IS THE PROPOSED OFFICIAL RULE REGARDING THIS ATKO STATED DIFFERENCE
Who knows, but I don't think that's inherently pornographic, that's something kids do. I remember when I was in elementary school, there was this one girl who really tried to kiss me all the time because she liked me. I, of course, wanted no part of it, because I had shit to do, and pokemon to catch, but kids sometimes kiss kids. I wouldn't want to watch it, but let's not pretend kissing is always lewd or sexual in nature.
I wonder if as a back up there could be a small group of voaters willing to be vetted by the admins to take over subs during times when a moderator purge is going on. Like handing over a sub to two or three vetted mods for a week or so until a vote on what trusted member of the sub gets elected as a new mod. I would be willing to do this if something like that were to take place. Like a crisis team of temporary mods with no dog in the fight to watch over the sub until the storm has passed.
All speech isn't free speech. Hecho seeks to normalize his deviance. I'm not going to tolerate it. I could give 2 shits if you downvoat me. It could also be argued that you are detrimental to our free speech. I'm not one in control. I'm just speaking my peace.
nope. you probably get downvoted to hell because your childish 'kill yourself' comment doesnt add to any discussion. the fact that youre still so pissed off about me posting pedo pics 6+ months ago is funny as fuck though.
you do that shit to me too, and you know what? i fully support your right to do so. women not wearing head coverings is illegal in many countries as well. i don't like those countries except when it comes to their marriage customs. we live in a land where the first amendment is free speech, which is intentionally supposed to protect unpopular speech.
Banned or in jail. As i said, it is illegal in many countries to incite suicide. Don't think you are better than him, he is born that way and so far there are no proofs he ever hurt anyone, instead you are actively choosing to hurt someone.
I know greycloud is one alt. He's replied from it by accident in the past. I imagine he has multiple tabs open with his alts. Easy mistake for a retarded like him to make.
For people who constantly say leftist are kiddydiddlers and muslims are pedophiles I find it amusing that they don't care about the pedo posting pic of kids he lives with. The rule about sexulized content of minors have been in the user agreement for as long as I've been here. I've pointed out that hecho is breaking the rule and I got downvoted. I pm'd Atko about it and he never did anything nor replied to it.
It's about time to rid this site from Hecho and people like him.
CP (or borderline) is not the hill I want free speech to die on. We could lose what we do have because of it. That's the goal of a lot of people argueing to keep everything. I get your point but we have a hard enough time defending actual speech here without defending a legal quagmire.
To the people that are so steadfast about voat keeping everything up to a very hazy legal line. I'd dare them to go make a jailbait website if that's a fight they're so interested in. Let me know how that works out.
I just don't think this should be voat's war to fight. And I really doubt the sincerity of people who say it's about free speech.
I'm a little surprised to encounter someone willing to discuss the topic rationally. This place is an echo chamber, and anyone who tries to tell you that it isn't is a liar. For the most part the people in it like to pretend they're different from Reddit and other boards that succumb to hive mentality, but it isn't. Any time a person subscribes to a notion that violates the hive mentality they are censored with CCP.
Some would argue that this is not censorship because the comment still exists on the site and is not deleted but I disagree. Comments with low scores aren't expanded. They're pushed lower down the list. They are far less likely to be read. Negative CCP is a form of censorship, and negative CCP is in and of itself is ultimately a method of saying "I don't like what you have to say so I'm going to punish you by making sure people don't see what you have to say". If Voat were truly about speech freedom there would be no voting systems at all. All comments would have exactly the same value in the eyes of the system regardless of their contents and regardless about how you, I or anyone else felt about them.
In a very real sense we're not talking about how to preserve speech freedom because that has never really existed here in the first place. We're talking about whether or not there should be hard censoring of some things while everything else is subjected to soft censoring based on popular opinion.
There have to be some limits to things, and limits mean censors. But the argument is always what are those limits? Who decides what those limits are? When is a limit going too far? These are valid questions with answers that are more often than not subjective. I don't think you'll ever arrive at an answer which is universally accepted. Society and it's rules surrounding social grace however are not based on universal acceptance; they're based on what the majority find acceptable. Ignoring social grace is OK for Voat if all you want is to manufacture a subset society that is comprised of only the fringe. If you want more you have to compromise.
We need to consider whether or not the site can survive subscribing to certain notions. Rebelling against all of societies' norms is not only idealistic and brave, but also self-destructive. Even if the creators do not personally subscribe to those beliefs that society deems unacceptable, it poisons the site. I don't believe this place can become financially viable without at least some concessions made in the interests of being socially decent. This doesn't mean all ideas have to be filtered, but there are some topics which are so morally disgusting that a majority of society would see it as an affront. This can and will hold Voat back. In my opinion Reddit took filtering way too far, but Voat isn't taking it far enough. Both in their present condition are extremes. I think what we need is somewhere in the middle if the goal is to keep the site alive and growing.
Free speech at its core is about the ability to criticize without fear of legal repercussion. It was designed specifically so that we could be critical of our government without fear of our government hurting us and has the fringe benefit of letting us express ourselves on other topics. What it isn't, is a license to be given access to any and every platform from which to express your ideas. People need to stop conflating the idea of free speech with the idea of a free platform. They are two entirely different things.
I don't think the doxxing is that bad of its just derived from information they post. Really you're not supposed to share personal identifying info, so if ithey shared it with voat before they are obviously fine with it being posted.
It is the price you must pay then to do thousands, I've submitted thousands and I'll go in and clean house on anything I see that really had any personal info after.
Sure it's a slight risk but if you where that paranoid you shouldn't even post in the first place.
I don't think that's fair if the social media profile itself isn't publicly searchable to begin with. You might know someone's Facebook even though it isn't indexed by search engines, but you can make their profile essentially public by posting their URL and info, since that can then get picked up by Google, etc.
For bullet #2: If someone does change a subverse without the proper chain of command should result in a ban or at the least a retraction of their moderator status.
way to miss the point, dipshit. You choosing to sidestep laws that protect society at large has nothing to do with me and my "safe space", it has everything to do with creating unsafe spaces for children who can't do anything about it.
Actually, for many people it safely quells and satisfies a fantasy so it won't get out of control. Much like how masturbating clears the mind of sexual desire, and if you don't masturbate, sexual desire increases.
well any good parent would be watching out for their kids anyway. i promote all types of things that people hate, but i have always defended and promoted a parents right and responsibility to look out for their children.
its one thing to protect your children. its another thing entirely to demand that everyone else follow the same sets of beliefs that you hold. it is honorable to protect your children, it is very dishonorable and shitty to tell other people that they must view child nudity, or "sexualization" as a bad thing.
Most of those "sensitive" rules are designed to keep admins' arses safe, not to be sensible. If drawn/rendered cp is illegal in state Voat got registered in, or in US in general, it will be prohibited on the site, no matter what weebs - and we all fucking know it's them that complain the loudest about drawn cp being treated "unfairly" - shout.
drawn/rendered cp is legal in the US in general. sometimes it may be prosecuted under local obscenity laws but in general those are getting shut down. it is de facto legal, and has been through the supreme court.
In some places the law is written in a way that makes no distinction, probably because no one has drawings in mind when writing this, but as far as I know this gets rectified whenever challenged.
Were talking about sexualized images of children. I don't care if it's fucking ASCII art, I want it fucking eradicated.
If you want to see depictions of children being sexualized, you need to tell a doctor, because it can be relater to
OCD, and it can be cured. Interest in sexualized children is a mental illness, and we don't edify that.
Pretty simple. One is violating another human being, and skating at the edge of violating a human being. Dreaming of violating a human being, fantasizing, longing, masturbating, all to a fantasy of violation. That person is our issue, as a society, and needs to be addressed. And as I mentioned, there is medical treatment that can alleviate the symptoms in some cases. Get help, goddamn you.
i agree that one is violating another human being while the other is violating cartoons. i didn't realize that you masturbated over your fantasies of hurting pedos. you are more sadistic than i gave you credit for. you are right, you probably should get help.
I have no interest in hurting them, I said GET HELP. I didn't say fall into a pit and die slow. You have a mental illness, and it's possible
it could be cured. Have you pursued every avenue to this end, or are you looking to be coddled and applauded? Cause we don't do that
here for the mentally ill, (of which I am one). Swallow your pride. Stop justifying, stop making excuses. Get fucking help. Stop skating
around with gateway bullshit, because it WILL escalate, and it will steal a great deal of YOUR life, whether or not you act it out.
thanks for caring. i have spent a great deal of time looking into what could and could not be done about it. and there is no cure (other than death). what i can do about it is utilize legal outlets so that i don't get overly sexually frustrated and hurt somebody. what i can do about it is advocate for legal changes that allow for those who have the ability to understand to be able to consent. yes i agree that most young people are ignorant and can't understand and therefore can't give INFORMED CONSENT (the kind that i am concerned about, as well as legal consent which is the kind most people get stuck on as if there aren't more than one form of consent).
for those with the ability to make informed decisions, it is the law and society that is wrong. i can understand why, most humans have a biological imperative to protect children (with the exception of the 4% of sociopaths and psychopaths). i am not a psychopath or sociopath. i have no intent of hurting anyone nor doing anything illegal. i do believe that the laws should be changed to better address ability to make informed decisions. age is not as good of an indicator as IQ is.
Have you done any CBT? or DBT? I've heard claims that they are literally rewiring the neural pathways in the brains of people with
everything from PTSD to MDD to OCD. It does seem a little bit 'Clockwork Orange' from the outside, but to check it out might be
worth the time - of course the mental health care in most places is shit, but if you live near a metropolitan area, they will have the
equipment and the trained professionals. Have you been tried on Orap? I think the proper name is Pimozide? It's crazy, but one pill,
or pill combination, will just do nothing at all, and another can make big changes. It's frustrating and obnoxious, but again, worth it for
a shot at normalcy.
It's important to discover from what your thoughts and feelings stem, it can help a professional figure out a treatment plan - if you're
in the boonies, they probably aren't going to be able to help, and I understand not being willing to climb into the asshole of an asinine
system that has nothing for you. And I'm so goddamn sorry you're deal with this. This fucking life, eh? :/ hugs
yes i have done CBT. i was sexually abused as a teenager. i was the age of the girls that i am most attracted to now (and have been for a very long time). it seems that my sexual attraction has stayed frozen to that time frame in life that you have long outgrown. i was coerced, but at that time was able to understand and consent. i had no good choices, so i acquiesced. i very much understand the difference of coercion and don't condone it. i very much understand the ability to make informed decisions yet be held back from doing so. i promote autonomy.
something people should be wary of is kneejerk responses to events. What can happen is that people may intentionally cause drama and chaos in order to instigate rule changes or simply cause general disarray in voat and subverses.
Anyway, I'd like to hear the voat community on spammers. People who make literally thousands of accounts and flood out a subverse with the same post. It's getting old and it's not fair to anyone who uses a single account.
Not saying that this should be a site wide rule, but I would like to see individual subverses adopt a clause against this type of shit posting
Spamming is pretty well defined. Spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send an unsolicited message, especially advertising, as well as sending messages repeatedly on the same site . Seems you guys are only worried about the advertising portion though, suffering the repeated messages my self I would like to have them deleted to unclog threads if nothing else.
No one mentions that but its unwanted by most of the userbase but these people still get 10 posts per day and just log into another account. They are circumventing site restrictions and being brazen about it by making accounts with numerical additions.
Never saw a rule about multi accounts, but I have seen users spamming with the same account, usually to harass a couple users for daring to oppose them. I have seen what you are talking about too, spamming with multiple accounts. I don't find the multiple accounts a bad thing just the rampant spamming that some of them do.
Let users fully block others. Problem solved on all fronts. Then all the admins need to worry about is whats purely legal or not legal and appoint janitors to remove that for them sitewide. The janitor fucks up once he is gone.
I disagree with the whole block user option on principle. Some users can be spamming assholes half the time and still produce quality content the other half. If I block them for being a spamming asshole then I lose the quality content they produce.
Then don't use that feature and let others worry about what they miss out on. Unless you are more concerned with what you want others to see or not see, it shouldn't bother you as long as you can see it.
If a bot is spamming incoherent ad spam for hours on end would you see any value in that? With a block feature YOU would get to choose and maybe everyone can be happier.
My apologies its hard to keep up with a anon thread. I don't want anything but spam to be recognized as spam. I don't want to self censor with the shitty block button and I don't want assholes to keep spamming. As it is now only advertising is considered spam. Repeated messages need to be considered spam and should be allowed to be deleted by janitors. Nothing else. No funky agenda to silence any one or any crazy shit like that.
I think a report button that includes reason spam/CP/dox and automatically hides the content for review would work. If the review finds the content to be OK, then escalating bans of the reporting account.
Apply a minimum CCP rule so it can't just be constant new accounts reporting things.
So what happens if I decide to brigade a user (I'm looking at you, /v/ProtectVoat) and have ample CCP to do so. I go report a user's posts, he's effectively censored on the site.
7800508? ago
Sexualized (even if clothed) pictures of minors violate US law and posting them endangers Voat. Don't do it.
7787969? ago
What's a CCP farm?
7786772? ago
The only reason /r/jailbait was banned was because Soemthign Awful forums brigaded it then Anderson Cooper shone a light onto it and Reddit got bad press. Even the subreddit ban messages sounded like an admission of that: "this subreddit threatens the integrity of reddit". Nothign about it being illegal or bad - just that its threatening the integrity of reddit.
If they really cared about that rule then why haven't they banned /r/starlets and its related subs (e.g. /r/chloe_east & /r/jordynjones ) ? All they are is famous jailbait. And BARELY famous at that. Some are just young girls who are models on some modelling agency website.
Its not been banned because it doesn't get bad press. Its got fuck all to do with morality or law. Its selective censorship.
Before /r/jailbait got banned it was one of Reddits biggest subs. /u/violentacrez was treated as a cult hero (he got hsi own special pimp hat badge for his contributions). It was only when Something Awful forums moral crusaders and Anderson Coopers program got wind of it that everyone turned against it and him.
It was manufactured moral outrage.
7648797? ago
Nope, just stating the facts.
We came here, from Eddit, to escape censorship of legal content, regardless of if we agree with the content or not.
If you want to continue the censorship, just go back. They don't have doxxing, loli porn, or any of the stuff discussed in this thread.
7632830? ago
No, but Voat was DEFINITELY not founded on censorship because some people feel offended, or hurt, by something that isn't illegal.
7608065? ago
stfu faggit
7607477? ago
How about we just let US laws clear it up for us. If you just say what's illegal to post by law, is also prohibited by Voat policy, everything will be fine. Otherwise, you may as well crack down on racism, sexism, body shaming etc...
Anything protected by the First amendment should be allowed on Voat.
7606911? ago
in the US it can only be prosecuted under local obscenity laws, it has already passed though the supreme court and the law that previously made it illegal was struck down as unconstitutional. local obscenity laws make everything "iffy" as it always comes down to a jury. literally any picture could be prosecuted, but the vast majority would not found guilty.
7606672? ago
Go to /b/ if you want kiddie fucking cartoons and leave voat as sane discussion board.
7606500? ago
Nice.
7606369? ago
Free speech, for one.
Everything Voat was built on, for another.
Community faith in the ideal that this isn't another Eddit, for third.
Should I keep going?
7606146? ago
I initially read this as Communist policy and thought that was odd :)
I'm just posting in here to fill your inbox with more shit.
Mick
7606132? ago
what if... what if there was a block all lolicon button or option? or perhaps a lolicon tag that simply prevented such posts from being displayed on v/all similar to how the NSFW tag covers the picture?
rather than ban, simply encourage the community to self regulate?
7605835? ago
canary is dead, update shows us that canary is dead. canary will not become alive again. don't trust jesus canary, jesus canary is a lie.
7604144? ago
Hey! You leave @Mick out of this!
7603948? ago
Community Policy is too general. Perhaps outline factors that if met cause a purge of the mods. Something like 5-10 factors, if the majority are met than a purge. Factors like redefining a sub or changing its scope without userbase approval, banning long-time, active contributors, deleting comments, multiple complaints from long-time, active subscribers, stated intent to destroy the sub etc.
Please give us the ability to vote mods in and out. Thank you.
7603838? ago
Define dox clearly in the agreement, and yes, start implementing your user policy. Otherwise it's useless verbiage that opens you up to liability and clutters the user agreement. Given the nature of a free speech forum, protecting users from malicious dox is fundamental. Please enforce.
7603822? ago
Fukken spot on. Community actualized repercussions are THE answer. Do it like Mexico does, don't vote, yours goes to the encombents position. Y'all just set the golden spike in the track with this move, great work. Sincerely.
7603810? ago
Yes to all.
7603123? ago
I think doxing should be allowed. There are gay people out there
7602567? ago
I just took a look at the removed posts in /v/canada wow the mods there are assholes. Censoring articles that pertain to media coverage from groups they don't like.
7602167? ago
Dox Policy
Finally. Dox is the one thing on the internet that can cause real world harm, through swatting and harassment (actual harassment that has cost people their jobs and stifled speech, not the BS definition of harassment). As far as I am concerned, this is preserving Voat's stance on free speech far more than harming it, since as far as I've seen dox is almost exclusively used to stifle speech a small, obsessive minority deem inappropriate.
The two big adjustments I would make are requiring intent to violate the rules, and excluding visibly public information such as a person's own twitter account/profile. For the former, this is the difference in posting say a leaked email that happens to contain a phone number somewhere in it and posting the same phone number in a pastebin with the explicit or implied intent to flood the number. I saw Reddit ban and threaten a number of users and subreddits for posting massive document drops (the Games Journo Pros leaks come to mind) that contain Personal Information somewhere within but the leaks are far too large to "clean up" everything, not to mention there could very well be nothing within them and it's impossible to prove the negative. Whether this leads to harassment (once again actual harassment) or not a massive document coincidentally containing PI is vastly different than purposely posting someone's PI, and this would give future Voat admins an ultimate veto against posting any large document under the guise of preventing dox. (You have to assume that all powers will be abused when granted them, it's what keeps powers in check.)
The other adjustment, excluding personal information posted by a person themselves, is much more straight forward. Reddit banned subs from posting any twitter or archived twitter links because they considered it "Personal Information". This meant fan subs can't post links to what their person/organization posted on twitter, even with the persons blessings. It also made anything posted on social media very easy to dismiss as fake, since social media posts are so easily fake able without direct links or archives. Every social media site in existence has privacy controls and if a person doesn't want this info public, they should make their accounts private or delete them all together. It's not on Voat to "protect" them and give them a massive new censorship tool in the process.
7601969? ago
The more rules you make, the shittier Voat becomes. I'd rather use my own ability to ignore things that I don't like, then to have mommy and daddy out there banning things to make sure that I don't get triggered.
7601930? ago
Dox, and prepare to be Doxed. Rather than making shitty rules about Doxing, rules which will invariably undermine the site itself, let people take responsibility for their identities and their presence in the world. If you don't want some shithead doxing you, don't be friends with shitheads, don't let shitheads know your alternate identities, etc.
7601060? ago
Make down-vote logs public.
7608462? ago
WELL HELLO FASCIST. You want to know who is criticizing you, huh?
7632839? ago
I'm so afraid of you yelling names at me. Oh no.
7613616? ago
Yep, that's called transparency. I think the real question is what are you afraid of...?
7615395? ago
I think the real question is what do dictators all have in common? They all want to punish anyone that criticizes them. "Who are you not allowed to question?"
7632845? ago
I enjoy Voat. It's not perfect, but what is.
7607573? ago
Whoever is okay with making public who votes on what has barely even thought about what it is they want. It will be used against you and have essentially zero positives. Whatever positive you think there might be, the negatives will and do outweigh it. People will witch hunt even more for someones wrong think in how they voted, mark my words.
7632837? ago
It already happens.
7613602? ago
Maybe, but that is a battle worth fighting.
7601049? ago
Fuck that. Fascist. You have a good thing going. Don't be co-oped.
7600086? ago
If we want to beat Reddit we don't need such carved-in-stone rules. We need to act on a per-situation basis. I dislike the idea of turning voat into Reddit or Digg.
7600013? ago
sigh Loli is protected content under Free Speech, you dense motherfucker...Here's what you don't get:
You want to start going after folks' 1st Amendment Rights, if the courts don't stop you, the citizenry exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights and the natural, god-given rights, as well as duties, listed in the Declaration of Independence, will. It doesn't matter who the Head Politician is. Trump isn't immune either, and if he doesn't play ball, then we'll boot him the same as we have so many other politicians in Congress last election.
Protecting Free Speech makes me a cuck now? Eh? I'm pretty sure Reddit caught wind of the anon conversation and is now shipping folks to fuck with us. Or we just got flooded with trolls. Calling a Goldwater Conservative a "commie", that's funny...it's clear you've got nothing of value to add here, so we're done here. What an ignorant and shortsighted fucktard...
7599739? ago
I'm not a lolicon or a pedo, so if you're not on my side (The side of Free Speech and Free Expression), the only side you can be on is the Establishment's, because they only thing I've been against going after is the lolicons, since their content is protected under the 1st Amendment. And if you're on the Establishment's side, you have no place here, you shortsighted nigger.
7599706? ago
Voat isn't regular society, free speech has been part of its mission statement from the start, including many things that mainstream people and even I would consider deplorable or horrific, yet I'll support the right for things like racist subs to exist as long as they don't invade the rest of the site.
7599567? ago
And that's relevant...how? Point being, if the folks most known for moral busybodying (They were the only remaining supporters of sodomy laws, laws that mandated government involvement in how people have sex...keep in mind, eating your girlfriend out would often be classed as "sodomy", under the definition of these laws, before they were overturned by SCOTUS) couldn't get loli banned from the US because of the 1st Amendment, I doubt Trump (A Moderate dressed in Republican clothing) can...and it's a good thing, too, because it would set a precedent for going after any other media deemed "disgusting", "offensive", or "subversive".
Guess who else is deemed "disgusting", "offensive" and "subversive" by the mainstream powers-that-be...that's right, WE ARE, you shortsighted dipshit!!!
Take out the protections Loli enjoys, and you set precedent for going after us all, you ignorant fuck. You may be a right-winger, but your authoritarianism factor is off the charts. So you either envision yourself the master of others, as the quote goes, or you really are just that shortsighted and foolish. Neither speaks well for you.
7599312? ago
Considering Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition was under a conservative administration, pressed by a hardline, right-wing evangelical attorney general...I wouldn't hold your breath.
7599191? ago
I am okay with all of the proposed rules but they do need to be better defined.
7599147? ago
I'm not sure this applies to this announcement, but apparently there are new content rules being enforced preventing content creators from submitting their own content?
https://voat.co/v/ReportSpammers/1548438
v/ReportSpammers admits my content is high value, and people seem to like it, but I am now required to submit 50% content I haven't written to be able to submit 50% content I have written?
I've been falsely accused of spamming for posting high value content on Medium.com which is a publishing platform I do not own. The person who reported me, and the moderator both do not seem to understand how Medium works, and are threatening to ban both my account, as well as the domain names of Medium, and a few of the publishers who use Medium who have syndicated my content. Medium and the publishers do not display advertising, and I am not paid to write for Medium, or these publishers. I am not making money by submitting content to Medium, or Voat.
I mostly write with the intention of informing others, educating others, and creating value for others. Occasionally I'll write and submit something for fun as well. Almost everything I've submitted has been well received by the Voat community, and mostly been upvoted.
Why would Voat, a news aggregation website, enforce a content policy that forces high value content creators like myself who write content the Voat community enjoys to submit 50% of their submissions as 3rd party low value content to be able to continue to submit high value content of their own? You're essentially forcing me to submit content I cannot verify the intention of that may contain advertising, and content that is lower value to the community.
Again, I have no intention of monetizing my writing. I'm executive in the tech industry, and make plenty of money and I write to educate others, and keep them informed of both politics, and tech news and concepts. My username is under my actual name, I'm publishing and submitting to Voat with full transparency here, and I am not doing anything wrong.
If policies like this are actively enforced then it will force me to stop using Voat, and will likely prevent other content creators from doing so as well.
7605802? ago
http://archive.is/
this counts as a different site. if you post all your stuff on medium, and simply archive half of it, and post the archive link (which will also have a link back to medium) it seems to me like you would be following the rules.
7605868? ago
That's clever. I might start doing this. Thank you.
We live in fucked up times when the last "free speech" news and content aggregator makes a rule that actively forces you to post ad riddled content and clickbait to be able to submit you're own high value content. Since when did sharing new ideas become so difficult?
7598955? ago
I must agree with what I read to be the majority of opinion. we cannot set limits on speech outside of something blatantly illegal. The Sexualized Content of Minors policy would require redefinition and likely majority community approval.
7605948? ago
kind of like how reddit does it?
7598847? ago
The doxxing rule should only be applied when targeting another Voat user.
Reddit mods are constantly removing comments under the guise of doxxing even when it's targeted at a public figure.
Why should we give a fuck about Reddit users? If somebody has the info of a nazi mod on Reddit I say fuck em.
At any rate there would be no gray area. Voat users NOT OK, anybody else OK.
7598773? ago
The only thing that I'd like to see is that a sub with a substantial subscriber base be informed when a subrequest has been initiated. Case in point, v/space was recently requested and granted to a new Voat user who met the bare minimal requirements to be given the sub. Since, he's increased his presence, but the sub has 34K subscriber base, many of which were regular daily contributors who had been given no notice that the sub was going to be transferred. A simple sticky informing everyday users of the pending transfer would have given all 34K an opportunity to either endorse or reject someone with no credibility in that subverse. At the very least, the requirements for transfer for such a large sub should be increased. At the time of transfer, the mod given the sub had four submissions. More than a few others have a hundred plus submissions and have kept the sub filled with relevant content.
7598418? ago
People are concerned about how the community policy voting thing could be abused by bots, vote farming accounts etc. Could I suggest that making it necessary that someone have x CCP (100 or whatever) in that particular subverse would address that? So someone vote farming high CCP in some subverse used for that purpose couldn't then vote on policy/mods in subverses they aren't active contributing members of (which I think is people's concern?).
7598065? ago
Rules don't make a community good, their administrators and moderators do. You're never going to have a perfect rule set and it's a fools errand to try. Instead people need to keep shit from going off the rails.
7597889? ago
I have one word to describe op and this entire thread chain
7597464? ago
Hey yeah! Let's violently lash out at people because we disagree with their victimless acts. They may violently lash out at people after all.
The danger from people like you is that you beleive you can justify violence on someone for an act that harms nothing & no one. Arbitrary self-justification of violence is far more dangerous than any image drawn from imagination.
7597255? ago
How about actually having freedom of expression and letting people fucking vote on something instead of being a marxist orwellian piece of shit and trying to force only specific dialectic to ever be posted?
7601774? ago
Because that is anarchy. That is /b/ . Honestly, good conversation can come out of it, but /b/ is much like 1M monkeys on 1M keyboards ... eventually you'll get a Shakespearean Sonnet out of it, but it's going to take a while.
7641566? ago
No, freedom of speech is not anarchy. Holy fucking shit, try harder.
Even on /b/ they don’t have freedom of speech. Especially on 4/b/. They’re all nice and cucked over there to sell ad space to normalfags.
Good conversation can ONLY come from freedom of speech. It CANNOT come from anything else.
7597155? ago
With the exception of the Catch all Policy i am against all of these rules, either because it's impossible to implement them in the desired way, or because i'm simply unconvinced of their necessity.
7596970? ago
they gotta ban cp you fag, do you wanna pay for thier fucking lawyer when they pulled into court because because some moron think points children is free speech. fucking idiot
7786832? ago
I don't think you understand the definition of CP.
7596931? ago
cheers is a reddiard shithole
7595691? ago
Very concerning the amount of discussion in this thread related specifically about sexualization of minors and ow close one can get to illegal content before it's banned. While I've not read through all 850 comments thus far, I've read about 1/4 of them and this seems to be the rule of contention. I don't care about your free speech. Period. Go to 4chan or some dark corner of the web to jack off to that shit. Or better yet, stick your dick in a light socket and do the world a favor.
7606098? ago
what concerns me is v/pizzagate, that should be shut down. it bothers me that it is the 2nd most popular post. these people are putting voat at great risk by doxing powerful political players. they are breaching the 4th amendment and starting a witch hunt. that channel is a poster child for fascism and is completely unpatriotic.
just my 2 cents.
7597052? ago
The point is that, if its NOT illegal, and it's banned, then you now have a precedent of "We will ban things that are not illegal, but are highly distasteful." A week later, /v/niggers is gone, well no big deal there, /v/niggers is pretty disgusting. Then you ban /v/fatpeoplehate, because hey, being mean to black people and being mean to fat people are basically the same thing, and you see where this is going. I find the content posted to subs like /v/youngladies wholly disgusting, but since it is legal, we must keep it up to avoid censorship creeping in.
7600909? ago
I'm not talking about setting any precedent. Post all the highly "distasteful" things a user wants and let people decide whether to participate in the forum/thread. Sexualized images of children in any form should be banned. If there is one rule that is not up for discussion or voat, that would be the one.
7601552? ago
It does't matter if you WANT it to be a precedent or not, you aren't the supreme court, and this isn't bush v. gore. Any action the admins take can and will be recorded, remembered, and used against them if someone else wants something done with the site. This is why the banning of /r/creepshot was so significant, why Spez editing comments was so significant. If we ban these abhorrent but legal communities, people will say "well, you did it to /v/youngladies, what's wrong with doing it to x." In fact, that's what you're doing right now: "Well we banned illegal content, so what's wrong with banning stuff that isn't illegal, but what I, user 7600909, personally feel should be illegal." Voat doesn't cater specifically to you, or to me, or to anyone but the admins (and relevant law) in regards to what we want on this site. If it were otherwise, I'm sure people in conservative countries would have had us shut down long ago because of the existence of /v/boobies4atko. As it stands right now, the admins have proven to care very much about freedom of expression, and that means protecting these communities, much as we might not like them (in fact, I know atko has publicly stated that he detests /v/niggers, and its presence on the site; he allows it to continue not because he agrees with it, but because if he did not, he could no longer say that this place stands for free speech). Laws protecting free speech aren't important because they allow the popular speech, that stuff would be allowed anyways, Free speech protections exist specifically for the controversial stuff.
If you don't want to be part of a site that harbors this kind of content, then, congrats, you can go to, as you put it, 4chan, or some dark corner of the web, or even back to reddit. Just know that no place that won't at least tolerate these things that you hate will EVER be able to call itself a bastion of free speech, and not be lying to the users and to itself.
If you DO like free speech, my advice is to block it and move on with your life. Was that so hard?
7602652? ago
If a forum decides to define free speech as the having the right to engage in child sexual exploitation, then yes. I will move on and it won't be hard. I've spent enough time in the sick world of /v/pizzagate research everyday and the shocking number of internet pedophiles you will find daily barking about their "rights" because it's "no different than LGBT". You're lecture to me about the free speech, as though I've somehow blurred the lines, is falling on deaf ears. I no not now, nor will I ever, equate the right of free speech with the right to sexually exploit children. Voat does not cater to me, that is correct. They asked for input and I offered mine. Time to move on.
7595593? ago
what goofs. it's dead anyways i'll just unsub and contribute to some other one.
7595426? ago
I think we should try and live by the rules of 'compassion and evidence'.
Basically, we should be compassionate to the idea of free speech and remain committed to expressing our own opinions passionately or not - with the idea that those who are not bringing anything useful to whatever subverse or discussion thread will just be downvoated or ignored by other legitimate Voaters. This is the ideal on which Voat stands.
Only if there is provable evidence of wrongdoing - malicious doxxing, posting immoral content (child exploitation, torture/snuff films, etc), and CPP farming then that user should be IP banned and also notified to the authorities if there is evidence of repeat offending. If there is evidence. No arguments.
Mods should be there to maintain these two standards. Nothing more.
7595221? ago
Don't like the last one. Whether sexualized content is "beneficial" or not, if it's not actually porn, and therefore not illegal, I don't see the point in banning it.
7595173? ago
My only issue is that doxing is set to only apply to voat users, we do not need to be putting up the info of anyone weather they are a member of this site or others.
7595149? ago
Cool, your argument advocating the illegal distribution of personal information, which is considered a violation of privacy, has no legitimate backing so you have to start with the insults.
It's okay for voat to remove some illegal things, ie rule 4 above, but not other illegal content?
Vigilante justice is not justice. Doxing is just as cowardly as trolling, and accomplishes nothing. ... But it's okay if you can't figure that out.
7595126? ago
I want putt to make me a turducken. That's really all I ask of you guys.
7595065? ago
I'm not talking about violently lashing out.
If someone desires kids, and they get off to some cartoons instead of molesting somebody, congrats, you saved a kid.
If someone desires kids, and they can find literally nothing else to get off to, because no matter what substitute they try it's going to end in being screamed and raged at, they're more likely to go molest somebody.
7595057? ago
I support all 4 policies. Especially the last one.
I look forward to this.
7594654? ago
Child Porn clearly has no place on Voat. Having said that, I cringe at the notion of censorship. It is a slippery slope. Look at what Reddit has become.
My preference would be the addition of a user option to block 1. posters and 2. specific content sources. That way it is the user's decision not to view specific posts and it only affects that user. I don't care what Amalek posts I don't want to see it. Perhaps someone else does. No reason for me, or the mods, to get in their way.
Presumably this would reduce the burden on the mods who currently play wack-a-mole, chasing whatever alias Amalek is using today.
As for illegal content, a "report" button could be included. This could be used to immediately restrict access to said content until the mods have an opportunity to follow up.
Thanks for all your effort.
7605822? ago
i think the report function could be abused unless it is somehow linked to an IP address. what is to stop me from creating alt accounts and reporting everything i disagree with?
7608825? ago
Any system can be abused -- and its amazing the lengths people will go to to abuse a system.
That is specifically why, if I were designing it, I would not automatically hide 'reported' content until the mods review it. At the very least I would set a threshold, e.g. number of 'reports', that had to occur before it was hidden. Also, If I did set a threshold, I wouldn't publicize what it is. Perhaps not even to the mods.
7594626? ago
Agreed.. I'm disappointed
7594492? ago
"hate speech" isn't illegal in the USA, but CP is
7594449? ago
I don't think it was. It was in style with the girl in white bikini in his history https://i.sli.mg/Skpog1.png
7594440? ago
You can look up his history unfortunately the worst things are to old to be able to view. https://i.sli.mg/Skpog1.png
7595532? ago
none of those pics are illegal.
7595628? ago
I never said they where. Some are sexual pic though and since the rule was in the user agreement when he posted them he should be banned for it.
7595737? ago
which ones are considered sexual?
7595812? ago
The one with the girl in white underwear/bikini posing. That pic has no other purpose than to be sexual. Hecho posted a bunch of similar ones but you can't view them anymore.
7594369? ago
Ad hominem fallacies are not an argument. If you want to claim drawings are not protected speech under Freedom of Speech policies, then explain why drawings are protected under the First Amendment.
7594359? ago
I only have an issue with two of them.
Not only does this in itself stifle the evolution of subs, but the whole "community support" bit is vague. Ultimately, in the subs I mod, I try to cater to those who post to it. Why should the Voat community-at-large--that is to say those who don't contribute to any of the subs I mod, or even subscribe to them--have any say in how those who do want to see the place run?
I'm a fan of, "If you don't like it, make your own." Voat to be, too.
What is a "generic subverse"? And when you say "free conversation," does that also include conversation that is ultimately not relevant to the topic of the subverse?
7594305? ago
I love your policies.
7594194? ago
You're the one claiming it needs to be banned, burden of proof, as well as the burden of explaining how this ban remains within Voat's principles of protecting free speech, falls upon you.
Funny you should mention niggers. If it were /v/niggers we were talking about banning, on grounds that people found it offensive, you'd tell them to go back to Reddit and otherwise pitch your shit. Censored speech, by definition, is not free speech. You don't like the content, block the subverse and downvoat it like a responsible human being that respects free speech, instead of bawling for a Reddit-style safe space free of the legal content you find offensive like some Tumblr-tier SJW.
7594095? ago
Last I checked, nobody is forcing you to subscribe to any of the loli subs, nor keeping you from blocking them. I fail to see any "shoving of anything" into anyones faces here, aside from your moral busybodying forcing your personal tastes into the faces of others who don't share them...and I say this as someone absolutely sickened by the lolicons.
Methinks the goat doth protest too much...
7593979? ago
Why "white night" those people? If they legitimately do something illegal then turn it into the authorities. Like that pedofile teacher on 4chan. (If you remember that, basically teacher dated underage girl. Internet got proof. Submitted it to local PD, based on his personal information found online. Pedo in jail.) Mob mentality will NEVER solve a problem.
I've also never seen doxing do any good. It's been neutral, at best. And can be terrible. When you shut up a troll on one forum he just pops up elsewhere. The negatives definitely outweigh the not negatives. (I won't call them positives.). When misinformation is put out there the victim cannot defend themselves.
https://www.google.dj/amp/s/dailydot.relaymedia.com/amp/layer8/anonymous-dox-wrong-history/
I know our information is out there and accessible but it's not a moot point. ... It's one less reason for them to get the information from the servers. Plus, using voat as a forum to distribute personal information is a quick way to lose this reddit analogue.
7593609? ago
70% of this i find to be bullshit, even if looking overall this is complete bullshit, and what appeared to be a
freedom of speechchildplay at beggining now it seems the appearences are just being kept at the limit of all this charade being fake... it actually transforms into a fake shit. just like a teenager girl is starting to use makeup cause its getting old.7593562? ago
And what are you hoping to accomplish by taking damaged minds and breaking them further? If you want to protect society, don't back dangerous people into a corner.
7593435? ago
"Gross"? SJW buzzword detected. Fucking grow up.
7593039? ago
I agree with all the rules, but what about rule Sexualized Content of Minors, I see /v/toddlers and whatever popping up in /v/new/ etc, I was surprised those subs were allowed to exist(while we clearly hate pedophiles that reddit protect, and also pizzagate).
7606147? ago
got a mouse in your pocket? who is "we"? i for one love free speech.
7592992? ago
Like others, I have a problem with the sexualized minors rule. If it's legal, it should be allowed, if it breaks the laws it should not be allowed. Subjective morality is not something that should be part of the site wide rules, especially since this is supposed to be a bastion of free speech. Feelings can go fuck themselves. Let @hecho perv out in his little corner. He's likely got a few stalkers just itching for the moment he fucks up and posts something that's actually illegal to get him banned.
Once you start dictating morality, what's next? Banning v/soapdoxbanhammer for being irritating? Banning v/science for posting pop-science articles?
TL;DR - Fuck feelings, keep what's legal and throw out what's illegal.
7592944? ago
You're right, allowing a witch-hunt is a good policy to enforce. .. What if the information you find isn't correct? Who will QC the doxxing to ensure you attack the right people? The terrible outcomes of doxxing are all the more reason to not allow it.
If you don't want free speech restricted then you're okay with Voat providing your information to authorities in order to prosecute you when you facilitate crimes caused by positing sensitive information of an individual? (I don't mean you specifically, I use it in general terms) .... I'd rather keep the integrity of voat (Ie Not giving investigators a reason to gain user information.) than let you win a pissing match.
7592828? ago
What's your stance on drawing muhammed?
7592137? ago
Especially if you're going to start having votes play any real role in the way subs are operated, you need to do something about vote manipulation. Recently a number of subs, including /v/space and /v/whoa, were taken over by people using bots/alts to get the minimum requirements to request the sub and then doing just that. This has in no way been dealt with. Adding even more things people can control with bots/alts and vote manipulation in general is a very bad idea until this is fixed.
7591954? ago
Yeah. This line: "Voat does not feel that this content increases participation or is conversational in nature, thus has little benefit" is particularly disturbing. It sounds like a cheap PR statement. Voat is not a hive mind and admins shouldn't dictate what is best for their users.
7591782? ago
**Adding new mods - I've only been here for about a month. From my observations, the Voat community, being what it was apparently designed to be, should have some knowledge beforehand of who is in consideration to become a mod. Voat members should have the opportunity to review the person who is in consideration for becoming a mod by checking posting/voating history and decide collectively.
The daily infighting over "mod shills" in the /v/pizzagate subverse is detracting from what the forum was designed to do. Which would be a win for those sabotaging mods who have been revealed for what they are thus far.
7591501? ago
Why do you want to become Reddit 2.0??? Or Digg 2.0??? Etc.
Illegal, sure ban it but if it's in a grey area or just bad taste or perverted etc. leave it. Don't ruin what made Voat great.
7591321? ago
Fuck your rules, faggot.
7591073? ago
Pornographic images of minors are illegal, or at best in a grey area.
IMO this isn't a gray area at all. It's just wrong and should not be allowed.
7591736? ago
youre an idiot. do you realize this is a free speech site and your personal feelings dont matter in what stays and what goes?
7592018? ago
Really? You want to see naked 5 year olds? 15 year olds? You should seek help. You have no idea what free speech means. Educate yourself.
7594385? ago
maybe you should take your own advice
7590850? ago
V/cheers isnt a CCP farm...
7590807? ago
Yes you can.
7590725? ago
The imagery ban on anything sexualizing children may be hard to impose and keep the integrity of "subverse pizzagate", as it is not porn. I postrd a weird picture this morning because i dobt know what it is. Because before reading on voat I hadn't heard about panda anything as a code. Is a fully dressed child laying with a giant panda stuffy sexualized? Or Is it a way to advertise drugging kids? Who knows...i was wondering. Also, Video and surveilance cameras, face book and all internet or someone walking by with a cell phone camera...all these catch real life sexualization of children in even "normal" settings. (Sexualized is often hand in hand with normalized thats why its so invisible to the naked eye. Because kids and information is hidden) These clues are what researchers and investigators are looking for to rescue kids when they are being exploited. Isn't there a way to block out their face or something but still keep the composition like that terrible alefantis chicken picture, the baby torso is blacked out. But you get the idea of not sex but deep power and intimacy the picture is just horrifying. It makes Calvin Klein heroinchic ads look like amature pictographers.
7590510? ago
I think all of these are good.
7590507? ago
I still say I like how the rule is worded in the OP. Let Voat take care of Voat, and let the rest of the internet take care of their own house. As long as Voaters aren't doing anything illegal, let the rule apply to the d0xxing of fellow Voaters, because you sure as hell know Reddit isn't going to enforce people from doing the same. And you know we're eventually going to have to have that showdown when either TPTB@ Reddit, or the Powermod Cabal decides to finally put their foot down and try to stomp us out when we finally become too big of a threat to ignore. I'm not going to endorse d0xxing, but the possibility that any raiders from there may end up d0xxed in return (due to the rule specifically banning the d0xxing of Voaters) could be a nice damage-reduction/control-mechanism to pre-emptively discourage raiders...and make no mistake, Reddit, or their Powermods, will eventually strike at us. They are not a demographic to go quietly into irrelevance, especially since they saw firsthand how badly it went for Digg.
7590418? ago
Fuck pedos!
7590356? ago
Oooooohhh ominous! SO POWERFUL MUST THE MICK BE WHO RUNS SUBVERSE WHERE AT MOST 20 PEOPLE POST BOW DOWN TRUMP
7590316? ago
You sound like a v/pizzagate CCP farmer!
7590311? ago
Like loli? I block all those. He tai is fine but explicitly saying loli is iffy.
Edit- to add, I upvoated because you have a good point . We don't want to spiral, but we don't want to use all our resources moderating a tiny population.
7590291? ago
V/pizzagate
7590287? ago
whatever lol
7590264? ago
I like those subs. The faggotry is unique to us.
7589989? ago
lol @Mick go home your drunk
7590055? ago
Hahaha, no :p
(it was not I who made that ((jews)) reply)
7589941? ago
Well they are illegal things.
7593508? ago
Drawings of sexualized minors are not illegal. Descriptions of sexual activity are not illegal. Pictures of clothed minors are not illegal. These are all free speech and safe outlet issues.
7595158? ago
I'm specifically talking about the illegal images and nothing else. I don't know why that's not more clear.
7599662? ago
Your original post recommended shutting down the communities entirely, including those which have rules against illegal images. I agree that people caught posting or sending those in PMs should be banned, of course.
7603313? ago
That is not exactly the same as saying we should shut down the communities entirely.
I was thinking there might be some way to monitor PMs, but I can't think of a way to do that without them becoming effectively public messages.
7589937? ago
You are pushing the meaning of the English words a bit there but I will clarify.
7589795? ago
People like you being perverts, you just went full circle.
7589649? ago
This is, incedentally, how a lot of d0xxing is done. Most information used to figure out a person's details like home address, is info they've already published on their own accord. It's simple detective work, from those basic pieces of data, to published d0x on /baph/ or other boards.
7589593? ago
Sooo like it's it's only doxxing if you revile information they haven't reviled on the site? Or like associated with that account?
7589592? ago
I'm not a fan of the loli content in RFH. However, to my knowledge, loli is still protected as artistic expression under the 1st Amendment, even if it is repugnant. What is Voat's policy re: loli content?
As much as I despise that form of content, I think forming a container-sub for it here, where they're allowed to post it, keeps it off of the rest of the web (And Voat, for that matter) that isn't as welcoming to the lolicons...and it's easy enough for me to block places like RFH to allow them their legal content without me having to see it.
tl;dr - Loli is repugnant, but between censoring legal content and supporting free speech/free expression, I have to come down on the side of free speech/free expression.
7589539? ago
The fact that you called pedophilia a grey is fucking disgusting
7589512? ago
It just seems different when it's about kids.
7592941? ago
That's what you call a double standard, and that's not how you create/implement rules.
7589504? ago
Hey can admins see who posts what on anon posts
7589735? ago
mods are gods, it's a good thing they are at best rarely active.
7589420? ago
So dozing would be like if you told a friend you used the site and they where able to infer who you are based on your posts and they post your name, something you've never publicly posted?
7589333? ago
What if the information was put together over a series of posts they made. Such a post where they revAL where their from another separate one with their name and last one with a phone number.
Is it doxxing if you put together what they already said?
7589251? ago
Voting ia stupid. i can see a CTR clone paying tens of thousands to vote out mods and destroy subs.
If you dont like a sub, create one.
/v/sbpdl
7589138? ago
I'm all for freedom of speech, so long as any combination of WORDS are allowed I'm fine with it. In this case even doxxing, maybe gives bans for giving someone's exact home address.
Pictures don't come under freedom of speech as far I am concerned.
7589108? ago
@puttitout @atko.
We need a stance on content such as /v/lolicons and /v/ youngladies. While I know many of the users on this site find this content objectionable, we need to know weather it will continue being allowed under the sexualized content rule. To me, this seems like a VERY important line in the sand to be drawn. Regardless of peoples thoughts on this content, both of these subverses produce content that is generally considered legal under US law. Under at least my reading of your proposed rule, these verses would be banned. Doing so, to me at least, seems like a step down a VERY bad looking path. We need an official ruling that can be referenced, a statement on the admins views here.
7589077? ago
The Canary Notice is 3 months old. Unless you update it with this announcement I am assuming you have had an issue. Also 30 days would seem to be a good update period or with each new announcement...unless of course you can't.
7606003? ago
you are correct. amelek stated that there was an FBI investigation against him. it could be more users than just him, but i doubt he was lying. he might have been annoying, but he was honest.
7597083? ago
Actually, the "Last edited time" on the canary thread refers to the last time it was pushed, at time of writing, 21 hours.
7605987? ago
lies, last time edited shows that this is the current state, and the current state is dead for the last 3 months.
7610666? ago
At the bottom of the canary
7589072? ago
Reddits downfall started with jailbait.
Enjoy your alt right safe space, cowards.
7589014? ago
I love the catch all policy! Generic named sub should allow all content in that genre.
Additionally please add ranking withinsub by "most down voted" to allow unpopular posts to be seen to stop brigading. Its one more simple index in the code easily done by adding - in front of the same code score used to sort "top".
7588928? ago
can confirm, had a conversation that went off topic on young ladies deleted because it strayed into sexual territory about personal high school experiences with another user. had my comments deleted and was warned not to stray into that type of conversation on that subverse.
7588902? ago
He just a fuckhead really who screams a lot and retards like you resonate with that
7588887? ago
Thats an actual name of your website? Good luck with that lol.
7588871? ago
meet @lockeproposal a reddit OP that xposts to voat, and selectively censors others from his private subs based on his feelings, using grey rules to cover his sjw tracks on voat. MEGAPOST
What do you all think about reddit trash? Free to do whatever in private subs like anyone else right? What about making draconian law but then only selectively enforcing them showing he's really just doing it to delete on his fee-fee's being hurt??
7590294? ago
Fuck off, and stay out of his sub. If you want us to devolve into /b/ lite, run off the people making this sub somewhat fun for more high brow discussion
7589306? ago
I fucking hate that little bitch. He crybabied away from Voat and came back recently.
7588832? ago
doxing. seems obvious. as a recent scottish blogger's info was revealed and he's having to stay low. unless that's fake news i'm unaware of.
community policy. it seems that there is a fine line when some mod or admin suddenly has it in for someone and just bans them for some kind of childish spat. so if there is a policy in place that allows for some kind of process to figure out if a.) is the ban necessary or b.) is there a mod just hatin on a poster, that'd be best case scenario. but for things like science, it might be better for the mod to have some say if for instance the idea of banning anything that doesn't have to do with science from being posted then that makes sense seeing that would be that subverse policy.
catch all policy. free speech. then again, there are times when there is a reason for taking action. but you know, free speech.
sexualized minors. who was it that said they know porn when they see it? is national geographic naked african children okay, but not a naked whtie child playing naked in the park? i've seen beautiful art of naked people of all ages. then again i've seen that show about making children into sexy models on the runway show. which is way worse in my opinion. it's a touchy subject. i don't think i'm lawyer enough to make a coherent statement. just draw a line in the sand and go with that.
7588750? ago
Yes. Keep up the good work
7588738? ago
These rules are good but need embedded in the technology. If we want Voat to live on past atko and putitout, it needs to be the way the site itself operates, otherwise new owners, new rules.
7588621? ago
yeah, brigaders
7588841? ago
Yes it was the aliens... 2500 views top comment has 100 votes but muh brigadeers
7588884? ago
BAGRADERS!!!!
7588613? ago
sBbH or Sdbh are CCP farms?!?!
Fuck me .... Lol ... U just dumb or hold a grudge for being called a fagot?
7588863? ago
The majority see them as farms for butthurt leftists and LGBT yes. And why not because it's been openly that way for a long time.
7593051? ago
Yeah that's why we regularly have Hitler posting marathons. Because we are leftists. Dumb faggot.
7589967? ago
The majority of fucktard whiny pussies, sure. Harden up you non-SBBH sad cunt fags.
7589736? ago
See it as ...
Never tried it then?
But you know because of what people say ...
Brilliant!
Lol, stupid
7595501? ago
Autist
7598117? ago
Just ADHD ;-)
7588605? ago
7589924? ago
7588567? ago
Voat is compromised. Amalek and Hecho together were always the real canary.
7588566? ago
No. Posting links from ereddit is easier.
7588557? ago
This makes sense
7588515? ago
original comment capped, archived, and logged.
7588491? ago
If I recall he wasn't even doxxed. That was a joke. Someone linked to the gif of "the laughing jew"
7588468? ago
Here's my opinion on these issues, one by one:
This is not a rule change at all, just a notice that existing rules will be enforced, so I will not cover it.
2. Our Community Policy
Other than the default subverses, I do not believe that moderators should be restricted in their actions. Allowing moderators to do whatever they want is an important part of the "federalism" of Voat. This is not a huge issue anyways, as any mod who enacts overly restrictive rules will have to face the consequences of widespread disapproval and loss of their community to better subverses.
3. Catch All Policy
My comments on #2 apply here as well. The autonomy of mods should be respected.
4. Sexualized Content of Minors
I do not understand how various countrys' laws apply to this. I don't think I want to either. Voat does not have a huge team of lawyers for sorting out borderline cases, so if there is any content that is in a legal grey area in whatever juristiction is relevant, it should be deleted. But if you can't reasonably argue that a certain post or image is illegal, it should not be deleted. If we begin censoring any legal content, it's a slippery slope toward widespread censorship and SJW control.
7588461? ago
lmao. retard.
7588416? ago
All "rules" only work if there is a penalty phase. Your attempt to bring moderators under control is GREATLY appreciated. I would only point out that this community voting design is a GREAT idea. But there should be a painless, ideally automated, way to evict out of control moderators. This is the single biggest threat to Voat!
7588283? ago
Dox Policy - I say yes only if it is about voat users. There are legitimate reasons why people would post personal info when discussing things. If that is included then I say no.
Our Community Policy - No. Can be easily abused by farm accounts.
Catch All Policy - Yes.
Sexualized Content of Minors - No. You worded it too vaguely. Also people brought up great points of situations that are not illegal but could easily be confused and grouped together with illegal content. If legal content is ever banned on this site then voat is comparable to reddit. At that point I leave voat.
7588276? ago
I am seriously questioning any major changes to anything so near the canary revelations. How do we know this wont be manipulated by those that killed the canary?
7588216? ago
I can even masturbate to my glasses if I want. Huh, such sweet lenses, I want to jizz all over them....Just showing an example.
7588179? ago
Against? You might be going off on a little tyraid. You aren't making a lot of sense.
I'm pretty sure both sides do that, and are forced to once one side starts. You can't point that finger at one side or the other. You could probably point it more directly at the side that uses it as an entry way into censorship. They are the ones trying to use it as a political chip.
7588176? ago
Horse shit.
The only people who are worried about "CCP farms" are frustrated brigaders.
"Oh no! No matter how many alts I use, I can't downvote this user into oblivion because he farmed too much CCP!"
7588166? ago
That's a pretty fuzzy line. Restricting it Voat users us safer from the freedom perspective
7588157? ago
One easy rule: Never delete a text post or comment.
7588142? ago
"Pornographic" could mean anything. I don't like what's going on, but censorship is never the answer.
If you don't like their work then you can always conduct raids on subverses, publicly deride, or attatch compulsory flair to pederasses.
7588097? ago
k. you have no clue how old my gf is soo how am i dancing a fine line? she could be 25 for all you know. anyway, good luck doxxing me.
7588090? ago
no, see the link retard. pay the fuck attention you nigger lipped limp dick fuck face.
IT WAS DECIDED IN AN U.S. APPEALS COURT
7588050? ago
From my experience you will, we don't go away.
7588004? ago
Allow doxing unless carried out by admin or mod.
7587969? ago
This. We're trying to keep our users out of jail, not pander to feelings. Restricting something because you don't like it is deplorable at best.
And get this, it goes directly against Voat's freedom of speech policy. It goes against any freedom of speech policy actually.
7589278? ago
To be fair to the proposed rule, though, sexualized pictures of dressed children can still be ruled CP when they fail the Miller Test.
7786889? ago
Good luck applying the Miler Test to many jailbait pictures. You'll get different answers and interpretations for just about every single picture. A girl in jeans and tshirt ok? What if the jeans are tight-fitting? Does that make it obscene? It gets to the point that it says more abotu the person applying the rule than the people you're trying to shut down.
Is this obscene: https://i.redd.it/y78nh1p58ray.jpg
How abotu this: https://i.imgur.com/vlHlnjd.jpg
This: https://i.redd.it/cumsfqy7svby.jpg
Good luck trying to get any consensus on those.
If things like 16yr old girls in bikinis are obscene/wrong then we should probably ban all clothing catalogues and websites featuring 16yr old models. When wil you be happy? When everyone's wearing a burkha until the age of 21?
7603382? ago
So basically let the government and literally anyone just decide whatever they want and jail you if they don't like it? Thanks, but no thanks.
7595210? ago
That's US law though. Swiss law is relevant for voat. Is there a Swiss equivalent to the Miller test?
7595876? ago
Isn't Voat incorporated in Delaware?
7595951? ago
I cannot find any evidence to support this claim. Do you have a source for that?
7597611? ago
Just this. Search for Voat, and Voat, Inc pops up.
7593536? ago
That's fine, but the rule as it stands would also ban loli art and text depictions, which isn't OK.
7587915? ago
And also adjusting your words to something that I also think is accurate
But if you say
@atko, @atko, please remove /v/niggers, I find it offensive.. You are not an agent of freedom and you justify the loss of your own.
That's what we see a lot of people doing today.
7587908? ago
that doesnt answer my question. why do you care? i havent done anything illegal
7587869? ago
Banning legal speech based on majority opinion is why we left reddit.
This might as well be a direct quote from reddit's reasoning for banning all the subreddits that brought most of voat's userbase here. Either you let people say things you don't like or you don't.
If it's legal, let it stay. This eagerness to replicate the judicial system, only with hugely fewer safeguards and vastly more arbitrary enforcement will not serve anyone well.
7587844? ago
There is no harm in cartoon porn of minors and it is not illegal at least in the United States. The rule on porn of minors should be very explicitly worded as to only apply to real life photographs/videos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
7587772? ago
Some of them are blatent censorship.
7587763? ago
Seems like a good start to me, though the Catch All Policy seems easy to abuse at current level (obviously; it cites more thought will be given). Could be abused for trolling, stifle attempts to get things back on rails.
7587761? ago
nope. why do you even give a fuck
7587711? ago
Sounds good so far. Might need a couple things added but I agree with these.
7587693? ago
What is phuks about? It looks like another Reddit/Voat clone. Who created it?
7587724? ago
The sdbh clowns. Already censoring FPH and sitewide banning users they don't like.
7588010? ago
They asked Goati to go. Yet it seems they would ban Goati if he went. He uses FPH and shits all over censorship.
7587685? ago
above the age of consent, so old enough.
7587675? ago
Not the shills, obviously.
7587674? ago
Don't listen to this faggot.
7587640? ago
Only a pervert is going to try and defend that crap.
You don't see people crying over it because no sane person wants to see anything like that, and I'm totally okay with the removal of it
7587622? ago
And that is a sensible thing to do I think
7587601? ago
And calling jailbait immoral is quite funny beause 300 years ago people were marrying sixteen year olds and were happy to do so.
It's the other hand of moral relativism. Some moral relativists use it to excuse their behavior dispite it's harm to others. Some seek make a matter of morality where there is none.
There is nothing immoral about making logical arguments that minority classes happen to find inconvinient and there is nothing immoral about being attracted to what is biologically normal to be attracted to.
There is something immoral about living off of welfare, there is something immoral about using people's substance choices as an excuse to steal from them, there is something immoral about calling someone a freak who's normal.
Morallity is not a made up subject, but there are a lot of people who would like to make up a load of things around the subject.
Fucking moral relativists.
7590329? ago
My Grandmother was 14 when she married my Grandfather at 20 and they lived a happy healthy life together.
Some states allow you to be charged for a crime as an adult at the age of 10, 12 or 13, but a 14 year old can't choose to willingly participate in one of the basic activities of most living beings, sex.
I don't understand any of it.
7588187? ago
300? Try my grandparents. Ok, actually both were sixteen, but marrying at sixteen is no taboo even if it became uncommon here. Generally it happens when a girl gets pregnant. I live in a poor country, so things may be different from your country.
7587596? ago
lol. who gave me a kid? uh i had one with my gf
7587557? ago
sure, just not fucked up enough to molest kids though.
7587505? ago
But that opens up the possibility of unfavorable opinions (like anti-trump stuff in politics) would limit your ability to take part in the community and downvoat shitty content. It would promote the echo chamber you see in voats like politics.
7587483? ago
Everyone here probably has. Otherwise we would be fighting wrong opinions on Reddit.
7587456? ago
If you've been on the internet long enough nothing really seems hardcore enough to be porn.
7587452? ago
Yep, I'm tired is not an argument and I hope @atko doesn't weigh these comment in for the count.
People's main argument is that they don't like it. Well, that's too bad, or they are going to get a boring site. It won't even work commercially because these people are never going to be tired of racism (I'm not saying that's bad) but they will quickly become tired of any alternative voice. Your userbase will be locked in. It won't be commercially successful and will be boring, all because people were tired of other people's speech. Anti-censorship gives voat the ability to change. User selected censorship will not.
These arguments should be ignored. I would mirror the db for these so you can identify and delete them without actually deleting them so you can weight only the real arguments. There are some on both sides that provide real arguments, but those are all the comments that should be considered.
7587342? ago
Keep in mind feminists thing everything is rape. That's not even a label we put on them. It's called critical theory. They think everything is rape. The ability for people to slippery slope what they think is an instance of something they disagree with is nearly endless, and not some theory.
This will end badly.
7587315? ago
That's some reddit talk there. We have to ban it for the image of the site!!
That is censorship. At the very least your motives qualify as censorship.
Let's use that logic elsewhere. /v/pizzagate makes us look like loons, so for the image of the site.. /v/politics could use some improvements. Works per your argument. It's a non-argument. The image comes second after freedom.
7587278? ago
It's not clear that they were using definitions based in US law though.
7587231? ago
Unfortunately, we don't condone ignoring mental health issues. He needs professional help to live a happier life.
7587944? ago
oh isn't that sweet. using anony posts to commit defamation per se.
say it to goati's face
go ahead.
out in public, pussy, not in ananony sub.
7588013? ago
Riiiiiiiiight. I've never had an issue saying anything to him in public.
I'm /u/Rotteuxx, @Sanegoatiswear knows my stance on his way of doing things.
Replying to a comment in an anonymous thread is not avoiding direct contact.
Now who the fuck are you, pussy, to call me out anonymously ?
7587218? ago
Makes sense
This should be specific to takeovers. Also, consider restricting it to generic subverses (once you work out how to define that). If someone works hard to build a sub, they should be free to change it's direction if they feel it's necessary.
Sub democracy is a bad idea in general, and all the arguments for/against it have been gone through many times before. It makes it way too easy for brigades to mob a sub and direct it wherever they like. As things stand they have to at least take over a mod account, without mods as a safeguard they don't even have to do that.
As you said, it needs to be defined, but sure. It'd help prevent squatting.
As you said, needs to be more thought through, but in general I don't think anyone wants this place getting shut down because of CP.
7587200? ago
What is the purpose of that sub?
7601796? ago
To pass butter.
7588597? ago
And sBbH and Sdbh -- the ban hammers are to post shit, call people faggetz and make fun of the mods. The level of retard is very high ...
Basically, it's just to post shit because the rest of voat has its panties wound up so tight in its ass you just want to post dumb ass material.
7587706? ago
To farm votes, mainly SCP because people are more likely to listen to those with high SCP because they have the appearance of providing content.
7590325? ago
Stick to your v/pizzagate farming ... Stop being a jealous retard
7589093? ago
You sure it's that nefarious? I've been there a few times and it seemed like a bunch of goofy people screwing around.
Then again, I don't even know how SCP works.
7590366? ago
SBBH and SDBH is all about calling you a fahgot and banning people which is actually a badge of honor. It means you are acceptable fahgot.
You post as much as you want because it's just pure retarded fun.
Nobody gets but hurt and nobody gets triggered ... Because we are all faggots.
If you can accept being called a fagvot and calling others that too openly ... Stop by and watch all the points farming ... Which doesn't happen.
7589569? ago
I bet you are never invited to the IRC channels behind it.
7589969? ago
The IRC is openly posted on Voat over and over idiot.
7590110? ago
Sure it is. Keep thinking thats the only one.
7589956? ago
What would they even have to gain from it?
7590135? ago
Some sense of twisted validation? Who knows. Don't try to apply your own logic to people with no logic at all. These are people who mutilate their genitals and shove things in their poopers.
7590233? ago
What the fuck are you talking about?
7590282? ago
You must have replied to the wrong convo we are talking about the banhammer subs
7590369? ago
No, I remember. When did someone from those subs mutilate their genitals?
7590442? ago
Fuzzywords not long ago for one. Lots more trannies there. All those "girl" posters dont have a proper vagina lol
7591407? ago
Trannies are crazy, but not nearly as crazy as people who mutilate themselves for funsies. Who gives a shit if they have a few degenerates there?
7587197? ago
Please tell us more about how SBBH farms upvoats, your understanding of voat farming is quite intriguing.
7587097? ago
It is troubling that this comment is like 10th.
7587403? ago
Why?
7590558? ago
Because when I joined this site we were leaving another site because of shit like this. It starts with banning inappropriate content which eventually turns into banning dissenting opinions and conspiracy theory/free thought. Yes, I would expect it to be higher.
7788005? ago
You're a bit late. They already banned /v/jailbait They're no more free-speech than Reddit.
7597391? ago
Ah, I assumed you meant it should be lower than 10th.
7589002? ago
Because hypocrites.
7588198? ago
I think he is worried that isn't the top one. Or may be the inverse. It's impossible to say, the words are very ambiguous.
7588391? ago
I'm going to assume it's the first. Many of us are here because of the censorship at Eddit, and to imagine we're even debating the idea that we could censor a subverse based on their non-illegal content is sickening.
I guess it's what they always say: those who don't learn from the past...
7587046? ago
you mean v/pizzagate ?
7587037? ago
There was a pic of a girl who wasnt more then 10 with pornstar makeup doing a smut magazines pose in underwear or bikini. As for the ond with a sleeping halfnaked toddler he just implied he was with the child and could do sexual acts with her easily.
7586940? ago
What if someone posts a pic of someone's name and address from a phone book or their web page or social media page? If this person has made this information public knowledge by putting it out there it's not really doxxing to release it when anyone could find it themselves anyway.
7586913? ago
A damn slippery slope. It was the start for reddit.
7587586? ago
I'm just wondering why this has to be posted autonomously in the first place
7586880? ago
Woah. Triggered there mate? Someone piss in your wheaties this morning?
7586708? ago
The Dox and child abuse rules are no brainers and I agree 100%. Good job on the other rules, imho anything you can do to move closer to TRUE freedom of speech, the better.
7586690? ago
Fuck you, /v/cheers is great. You just can't stand the idea of Voat having a sub dedicated to uplifting content that isn't controlled by your hateful narrative.
7588874? ago
No its just controlled by one persons bitterness at being clinically depressed.
7590823? ago
Lolwut
7586675? ago
When a wave of us left after pao, hecho started posting pic of children on several different subs. Some where toddlers and half naked or in sexually suggestive poses. The rule was in the user agrement then but he was not banned. He has open ly stated that he is a pedophile and he has posted pic of children he lives with halfnaked asleep with sexual titles.
7587121? ago
that is such bullshit. i dont even live with multiple kids or any toddlers. i only have a 3 month old, and the post youre probably talking about was from 8chan.
7587189? ago
The title implied the toddler was a child you lived with. In the comments you implied you could do things with that child. I hope someone takes that baby away from you so you never have a chance to abuse it. You are sick and pedophilia is not freespeech.
7587254? ago
ok. it was an 8chan link. youre gullible as fuck if you think that pic was of anyone i know. i wouldnt abuse my kid or any other kids for that matter. im not as fucked up as you think
7586659? ago
This should not be the issue.
7586612? ago
You say this now, but just wait until some asshole doxxes you, and actually fucks up your real life. I'm sure that'd change your tune.
Maybe if people were responsible about it, and were actually shedding light on something that really should be illuminated -- but that usually isn't the case. It's usually done by assholes, just to fuck with people.
7586585? ago
Child porn - ban children having sex with children, adults or animals. Require the genitalia of minors to be hidden. The genitalia being the parts of the body that are covered by the bikini of a girl and the swimming trunks of a boy.
Edit : counting feet as below a bikini is pushing the meaning of the words but I changed it to covered.
7586531? ago
And so far you are allowed to with the owners permission. They may decide they won't allow it on their site. The you'll have to find somewhere else to whine. They owe you nothing!!
7586518? ago
How would bans be enforced if it's all throwaway accounts doing it?
7586411? ago
How does posting stupid memes and maybe getting 20 upvotes violate any sensible rule?
7589616? ago
20 upvotes adds up over time. Its the alts they are constantly rotating to get above 1k ccp for an effective downvote account. Ever wonder why they are always changing accounts?
7589727? ago
I'm a mod on SDBH and have never used an alt.
7589804? ago
There are brown sheep too but most of them are white.
7586329? ago
Why don't you GTFO and get laid so you don't need 15,000 places to go jack off?
7586325? ago
People aren't reading the dox policy part right. It says "of a voat user". If I want to post mark zuckerfucks phone number thats perfectly fine because he is not a voat user.
7586695? ago
How do you know he isn't? Or is it alright as long as the information isn't related to a user profile on Voat?
7586822? ago
I suspect it means related to a profile.But thats something I would actually want the admins to specify in this case.
7586317? ago
Sexualized Content of Minors * Should prohibit all child modeling agency's (like candydoll) and all children in swimsuits.
7587470? ago
2 out of 5 of my favorite things are candydoll
7586316? ago
@1557385
This is an outline very close to proposals I've shown a lot of support for, and come up with myself. I'm very happy to see you've listened to the entirety of the site and not just certain groups. Giving the community a way to have stake in control;ling their subverses is a massive step in the right direction.
7586292? ago
reddit admins moved to san francisco i think, after that there was no hope for the site
7586242? ago
Let them have something equal, but don't call it marriage. If I say "They are married" I don't want to have to add, that they are not gay. The word should imply man and woman.
7613237? ago
You don't have to specify though. Why do you feel like you have to add that a couple is gay?
7613460? ago
I'd have to specify that they ain't gay, to make it clear. Otherwise the one I'm talking to wouldn't know which it is. It's confusing to make something new and call it something old. Like those stupid remakes of movies that use the exact same title as the original.
7589348? ago
Let's not make it a government matter.
7586842? ago
Nice strawman there.
7589321? ago
Are you saying that he made himself into a strawman or are you saying he made an inaccurate characterization of gays or of @7586053's comments?
Otherwise, you don't know what strawman means.
7586220? ago
For the doxing policy, is linking to information posted to the internet considered doxing? I remember in the Quinnspiracy , where pictures posted by quinn were linked on reddit (pornographic in nature), and it was considered doxing for some reason .
7586171? ago
I can get behind these proposed rules.
7586145? ago
Making Voat more like REDDIT kinda makes it obsolete. The whole point, I thought, was to allow everything but that which is clearly illegal. To be an alternative to reddit. Why would people want to be on voat if it's just going to become reddit?
7586134? ago
fucked up shit, such as saying multiculturalism isnt completely flawed, its just that immigration needs stringent control.
thats fucked up shit to some people.
so is saying there are two genders on reddit
7586112? ago
Wow.. didn't think my suggestion was going to be taken seriously.. cool shit! Or mine was never seen and was already being considered.. yeah ill go with that.
7586053? ago
shitposting is allowed
7596253? ago
Shitposting is free speech, and we have to protect all forms of free speech, especially the forms we don't like.
7586029? ago
I'm just explaining how shutting off all voting using the current requirements could leave subverses basically dead in the water if set too high too soon.
7586028? ago
Yeah, I agree.
7586006? ago
Nothing I see seems unreasonable, although clearer definition regarding creation of generic subverse stipulations needs to be clarified...
7586005? ago
farming CCP is incredibly easy so this doesn't help. IP restrictions don't work because tor makes it all easy to bypass.
7604109? ago
I'm surprised Tor is still up... though I wouldn't take the chance since clearnet and f2p was thought to be already hijacked and infected... who knows if one of those nodes now belong to the FBI
7605102? ago
I'm sure the FBI doesn't give a shit if you're farming CCP with tor.
7606015? ago
It would if one of the traffic on my network is watching the diddlies.
7605035? ago
It's a swarm-based protocol. There's really no reliable way to shut it down on current infrastructure.
Besides, why bother shutting it down when the powers that be can simply monitor the traffic there and make sure it suits their desires?
7585935? ago
That's not upvoat farming. All content is relevant to that sub, upvoats arnt begged and there are no upvoat bots.
7587919? ago
so you're saying if the upvoats aren't begged and done by human hands, it's not a farm?!
7587981? ago
And done by unique accounts not alts.
But yes.
7590344? ago
There's plenty of alts being farmed there and you know it.
7591492? ago
There are plenty of alts. They're not farming. Not everyone wants to post to a racist nazi shitpost doxxing group with their main account. Me personally is just one account and it's my main.
7588074? ago
so if a person conspires to manually upvoat his own alts, it's a farm to you
but
if a group conspires to upvoat each other manually and they don't beg others, it's not a farm?
hm..
i don't know about that...
7588193? ago
Where is the conspiracy? It's not a serious effort to all come together and upvoat. It's shitposts, it's humour. That's like saying pizzagate is an upvoat farm because people in the group are upvoating each other.
7590003? ago
In pizzagate they openly beg for upvotes in threads so they can use them to silence contributors
7591482? ago
I haven't seen it personally but I believe you. I'm sure it happens in any sub with enough people in it, but it doesn't make it a farm sub.
7588244? ago
And FPH isn't?
7588425? ago
FPH?
7589234? ago
/v/FatPeopleHate
You know, the reason all those redditors came over here that one time.
7591458? ago
Oh yeah but I don't know much about them, one comment there and I got banned for being fat haha
7588941? ago
Fornication potato hambergurs?
7591449? ago
Oh yeah that one. Good sub good sub.
7585901? ago
The voat pedophiles are freaking out.
7585889? ago
Yeah nah
7585846? ago
Everything sounds good to me. I rarely post, but I'd like to take this anonymous opperunity to express my appreciation.
Voat is full with so many different and interesting people, critical thinkers and people who give me a laugh every day.
I love it here, thanks for keeping everything up and running! From Atko and Puttitout to the people who post content here every day.
7585812? ago
yes to all
7585766? ago
Rules AGAINST censorship. Now, that's true innovation.
But rather than encumbering the site with rules, you should simply embed the behaviour into the platform. E.g., make it harder for mods to delete content. That is one of the major sources of censorship on Wikipedia, for instance. It's just too easy to 'undo' other people's contribution.
7585726? ago
Fuck all this shit, voat is best with anarchy. I don't want to spend my time here tip toeing around a bunch of niggers faggots and their feelings
7594517? ago
Just not possible, it's centralized and incorporated in the USA. If you want some kind of anarchy, hit the dark web.
7585713? ago
That might not work too well, since the current requirements are for CCP amounts in a subverse. If you set even a tiny requirement before anyone can really comment there, then all posts there will also be worth 1 point for submissions and 0 points for comments. On the other hand, if a farm subverse creates a few bots, upvotes their comments on a new subverse a few times, and sets the CCP limit to some amount that they all have, then those active bots can upvote the comments of new bots, still creating the main problem of continued CCP farming.
7585699? ago
sometimes people need to get called out. Where is the line between a dox and a news story? Alefantis? This could get out of hand quick so I'm actually against this rule and pro DOXing as well.
7588510? ago
Isnt it about not revealing irl identity of usernames?
7585645? ago
I just want to comment on what a great job I think voat is doing.
Is regular doxxing illegal though? I think that prohibiting the activity, though used against our userbase, goes against free speech.
7585628? ago
I for one would not mind a site wide ban on all pornographic material. I know for a fact you fuckers don't own the rights to 99% of the content you post nor do you have the model's explicit permission to share the images online. There are literally thousands upon thousands of sites that cater to that type of material out there and getting rid of it on Voat would end all the people trying to creep past the line of what is acceptable.
7587271? ago
the same is true of news, especially archived news. there are thousands of places to get news articles, probably shouldn't be posting them on voat right? there are thousands of sites that cater to that type of material, getting rid of it on voat would end all the people trying to creep past the line of what is acceptable.
guess what? you don't draw the line of what is acceptable.
7585627? ago
Doxxing shouldn't be all personal information, as many people put their information out there in the public, if so it is available for all and is free speech to post here. Doxxing should only be personal information that isn't available in the public. So for example if some one points at a public facebook profile they shouldn't be banned for doxxing.
7585545? ago
If you feel that way, do what Voat did. Open your own site with your own rules or lack thereof. Who's forcing you to be here? I can read this, or any, sites rules and decide if I want to participate. Eddit and Voat owe you nothing, it's their site and can do what they want with it. Voat admins are at least seeking input, but the final decisions are theirs, like it or not.
7586099? ago
Funny, I heard that same argument on reddit... Explain the necessity of voat if it has the same rules as reddit.
7586410? ago
Necessary? The world functioned, and will continue to do so, without either. They were desired. And Eddit decided to make money off of it. There is no requirement to participate in them.
It doesn't. If (speculation) or when it does, you are just as free then as you are now to not participate. What is so hard about "these are sites that are privately run and can set what rules they want. Participation is wholly voluntary"? You are entitled to jackshit.
7590756? ago
Why split my sentence in half? Oh right that way you can obfuscate my point.
Reddit exists, voat exists. The reason voat has a user base is because people wanted an alternative to reddit. When voat starts implementing rules that are the same rules that exist on reddit, there is no reason to use voat. And this is the first step to making a friendlier site that 'investors will be happy with.' Investors meaning adverstisers. Meaning say goodbye to the word nigger, fat people hate, jailbait, anything that could be considered offensive.
7585506? ago
Be careful without doxing policy. Reddit abused it all the time. Post a phone number? Banned. Investigative journalism? Banned. But it only happened to people mods didn't like. Their favorites were allowed to break the rules.
CP should be banned, non-nude shouldn't. If it's legal, voat should allow it. That is the freest of speech.
7587352? ago
Ultimately, if the mods/admins want to censor people they will. No matter how clearly you write the rules they will do it.
7585493? ago
I would suggest caution with the Community Policy in regard to future plans. A function where users can vote on the direction a community goes probably gave a whole stack of spammers and alt farmers a big wet boner. You could require a minimum membership time to vote, but even so it'd be easy to abuse. That bedwetter Spartacus can whip up a few hundred votes when he wants.
7587323? ago
^This
There is no version of user based direction that isn't vulnerable to SRS trolling.
7585446? ago
Lose respect? Dude, there are users here who clearly think black people are sub-human. What respect? We never had respect.
7585430? ago
-Thank you for the update on the Canary Notice. It's appreciated.
-Rule Idea: Perhaps it should be a rule to have a maximum number of Voat accounts per IP address? A number that would allow multiple individuals to continue to post while on the same Wi-Fi, but low enough to help shut down CCP/spammers.
7588448? ago
I think one account per IP or a limited number of accounts even is a little extreme. It might not be uncommon to have a "clean" account that you can tell friends, family, and employers about along with a porn account and a politics/general discussion account. Also college campuses could have thousands of users on a single IP as may VPN users who may also use their VPN's IPs to circumvent that rule (I think Private Internet Access for example has hundreds of thousands of IPs). Free proxies are another issue as they may be used to give a user more IPs or create a situation where multiple users are behind one IP.
7585427? ago
Sexualized Content of Minors
There needs to be a strict definition of what constitutes sexualized material. You already mixed up the terms "sexualized" and "pornographic." A minor posing seductively in yoga pants would generally be considered to be sexualized content. It's also not illegal.
I personally don't think Voat should be morality police, and should permit any legal content. We have the block button if we happen to not like that type of content. Going above and beyond the legal requirements is unnecessary on a free speech website.
7585426? ago
Like I said, not my thing, but as long as it's legal, I see banning it as a major step in the wrong direction. About a year before reddit purged FPH and many conservative subreddits, they purged anything involving teens.
7586670? ago
Banning child porn and anything down that line is always the first step to full on censorship. First you make censorship seem like the right thing to do, then it's established as a thing to do and then you do it more and more and less and less people will care.
..and then you get to the point where video game publishers have to change the age of characters in games that are for all ages to begin with, because we just live in that type of crazy world.
7585419? ago
He means if its uncovered, even if its supposedly innocent or 'art', it should be removed. If it is uncovered, but barely so, it should probably be removed.
7587996? ago
That's your problem, that's all in the head. Why should it be removed?
7588636? ago
Come again?
7603390? ago
Feet are sexual to some people, are you going to say the feet of children must be censored? This is out of hand, this is just wrong.
7604300? ago
You have a fair point.
7585389? ago
/v/niggers is a quick way as well
7585382? ago
Doxxing: does that comprise even data that has been willfully given to the public, i.e. public social media accounts and et cetera?
7585364? ago
There''s surely a difference between cartoons depicting sex with children and the annoyances you list. Hecho doesn't post sex with children imagery but most agree he is a pedi but it's ironic how many people defend /v/rfh which includes sex with children. Surely a line should be drawn . NO SEX WITH CHILDREN PEDOS
7585505? ago
No. We're offending feelings the same way, not people. If your feelings are offended by cartoon pornography, my feelings are offended by the constant racism on this bullshit. But I'm the one defending banning racist and racist subs?
7585417? ago
Sure, throw in cartoons depicting sex with Mohammed as well. Don't want to offend people now do we....
7585447? ago
You dolt.
7585357? ago
Doxxing
We need a strict definition of what constitutes doxxing.
A user voluntarily posts something to social media. Other users repost it to make fun of him or her. Is this doxxing?
A company does something people don't like. They post the publicly available contact information and tell users to call the company. Is this doxxing? What if they tell them to call and troll them instead of being civil?
A minor celebrity posts nudes to a public site. She then claims it was accidental and says they should be deleted. Is it doxxing to share those pictures?
7585343? ago
MY FIRST AND ONLY DOWN VOTE. Fuck your rules. Fascists. These are just words. No one gets hurt. It's called "Free Speech"
7585459? ago
You must have a bad case of tl;dr
7585311? ago
Sexualized Content (of minors or even of someone who objects - IE revenge porn etc...) should be handled like doxing. Immediate or x timeframe specified removal of the content. There should be no recovery of the content via the deleted comment log though I suggest an internal log be kept for reporting to law enforcement. This is the sort of crap that can get a site shutdown and people can post it to places they don't normally frequent as a weapon. Voat needs to be very fast in responding to it.
Perhaps a report option that includes a "this is xyz content" that automatically hides it for review. If the user who reports it is wrong, the user to improperly reports it would get a temp ban.
7585308? ago
Yup... "Jailbait" subs with legal pictures got banned first on Reddit and it was downhill from there. Continued with drawings, then creepshoots then fatpeoplehate, coontown and at the end there was a site wide censorship of wrong opinions.
7589693? ago
Absolutely this. subs on reddit with legal content such as xsmall and xxxsmall got banned because people associated young looking or thin women with children, even though the mods there were very diligent in removing any questionable content. It wasn't even jailbait type stuff being posted, it was legally published porn with of age women that looked young. The moral police got to decide it was wrong because they associated those women with children because of their looks.
7588611? ago
This is about right and the issue was forced by somethingawful goons disguised as shitredditsays. I think this latest voat debacle involving whitesomustberacist smells a lot like outside interference
7587612? ago
I honestly couldn't care less, this site doesn't need jailbait subs, period.
Marketing alone for the site is a worry when people associate it with that crap
7585298? ago
What about any subverse under henrycorp's rule? Where he has already done exactly what the ex-mod of /chicago and /niggers was trying to do. Luckily that was exposed and delt with (thank you), while his rule is already established. And he has banned everyone and put crazy ccp restrictions so the voat community has no say.
It would be amazing to see a voat-wide discussion on this issue.
7587563? ago
No. Those mods changed the direction of an existing sub. Henrycorp created subs and ruled them like a petty tyrant. The result was that almost no one used them and he had no power/audiance to speak of.
7588199? ago
He created a sub called /guns? Please. Its been his gameplan all along to only have his agenda-driven content on a sub he knows would / should be frequently visited.
@henrycorp faggot
7588634? ago
He doesn't own /v/guns, he owns /v/gunsarecool. Anyhow, it's not really an issue. if any new users go there, they see what a shithole it is, and never go back. Meanwhile /v/gunsreallyarecool shows up on the front page and they subscribe.
7589032? ago
Thanks for the response. Ill ease off I guess
7586632? ago
Is there a link to his story? Seen the name pop up here and there, but don't know anything about him.
7587592? ago
He's a reddit powermod who spams anti-GMO/anti-capitalist blogs. He squats on several generic subs over here and bans all dissenters, but he has to keep them in limited downvote mode to avoid his account being sunk under the weight of voats disapproval of spammers. As a result, his posts can't make the front page and he has almost no readers.
7585754? ago
Yes, @HenryCorp is festering away quietly in the shadows
7585825? ago
I hate pinging the faggot. Its like inviting him to the table. No thanks
But yeah I wish this would be addressed asap. Like within this sticky
7588643? ago
I doubt he reads his pings anymore: Too many of them.
7586355? ago
I know what you mean, but I also think that maintaining awareness of his presence is important.
Not at all sure if this is something that admins can or should act on in this sticky though, just a reminder of an longstanding issue
7585248? ago
Catch All Policy - I think a voting system for mods and rules would help here if it can be defined in a way to prevent outside infiltration of a subverse community.
7585243? ago
What do you think about jailbait? Aka non nude teens? It`s banned on 4chan but allowed on 8ch.
7586717? ago
If they're not naked what's the difference between that and a child's pajama catalog?
7585240? ago
Let's make rule sidebars only editable when a vote is taken and the vast majority (80%+) agree on its implementation. In fact, let's make that the policy for implementing new mods, too.
7585236? ago
Community Policies. A voting policy of some sort for mods as a community policy and for rules is needed - but any system will be gamed. I think an appeal to admins if regular users of a subverse think it is being gamed should be in place.
7585226? ago
What about loli content? Are those considered minors, or is only media depicting real minors banned? Does text count as media? If someone makes a subverse that allows posts of lewd fanfics, would fanfics involving any minors be banned, or just living (or once living) minors?
7585220? ago
On Doxing: Agreed. Doxing reported to a mod of a subverse should result in that content being removed within a defined amount of time and the deleted comment itself being redacted but still in the log.
7585217? ago
On Community Policy.
Moderators should be allowed to consider not implementing excessive rules, even when the majority would like them -- sort of like the US Constitution guarantees certain freedoms despite the majority.
7585187? ago
So is doxing non-Voat users okay? What if they sign up for an account later? Can they then request a takedown?
7585154? ago
It just isn't a safe practice. Remember the fantastic internet sleuths during the Boston bombing?
7588473? ago
The rules above refer to doxxing voat users.
7592876? ago
Correct, however that doesn't make it any safer
7587164? ago
"Remember the fantastic internet sleuths during the Boston bombing?
No, can't say that I do. Everyone I knew was in the live thread and listening to the scanner feed. What I do remember is the hundreds or thousands of times people have referenced that small group of retards as a reason for [insert policy here], and it's hard to not see them as much the same.
I would suggest that letting retards dictate your course of actions in life might not be the best strategy out there.
7592886? ago
Oh, since you didn't remember it then it must not have happen. ... My bad
7706198? ago
It's like you tried to say something, but then your mind wandered.
7585654? ago
I have personally had people, not here mind you, that attempted to dox me. They fell for the misinformation I placed out there. My crime, not supporting Michael Brown and supporting the police officers. The facts were on my side after all but it didn't matter, I didn't listen and believe.
7585137? ago
Looks fine to me.
How does the doxing policy apply to lolcows like dicky Ricky when no actual personal information is posted?
~HomerSimpson
7585132? ago
Hope you don't have to try to explain that to a judge. As i said, inciting someone to commit suicide is already illegal in many countries and Voat should ban it By inciting someone to commit suicide you are actively damaging Voat because if hecho (or whoever) decides to listen to you the admins here might get in serious shit since they did not prevent you from doing so.
Example from Australian's law: http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5556/what-is-the-law-on-suicide-in-australia.aspx "Anyone who incites or even counsels another to commit suicide is liable for five years in prison if the other person commits or attempts to commit suicide."
This is the first one i found with a fast google search, it is also true in many other countries (including mine and i would guess in most Europe too).
Also, i don't agree that "words do not hurt people", there are many examples where words actually pushed someone to commit suicide (we discussed one of the cases just few months ago about a girl who pushed his boyfriend to kill himself, and he did so), this is why many countries have a specific crime for this.
The point though is this... by inciting someone to commit suicide you might actually succed... and if that happens the admins here might be the ones who will have to pay for it. I don't know where Atko or Puttitout live, but in Switzerland it is also illegal to incite someone to commit suicide https://www.rwi.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-5624-ccd2-ffff-ffffa664e063/assisted-suicide-Switzerland.pdf so they might actually be tried for something you did and is perhaps not illegal in your country. This is also why Voat should ban this kind of behaviour.
7585084? ago
SaneGoat has become a shit-slinging sperglord.
7585051? ago
Its been updated.
7606040? ago
and the update shows that it is dead
7608223? ago
https://voat.co/v/announcements/1330806
The edit time in the right panel of the above thread is the canary. Currently its 1.6 days old and still chirping.
7610688? ago
no, the canary is the post, the canary is dead. on the right panel above the thread is the update notice, that shows that the canary is dead. it is now illegal for the mods to create a new post that says the same thing.
7614537? ago
No the canary is the edit. Its been explained many times before. Why do you think they keep editing that thread?
7585046? ago
Yes, mod of v/Canada needs to be kicked
7585043? ago
Yesterday you said you loved me and today I can return the favor.
7585032? ago
If the discussions are kept open and honest like this then that can be addressed later as well.
7587605? ago
No, that needs to be addressed first. It's a fundamental flaw of the proposal and if it can't be solved (and I don't see how it could be) then it shouldn't be implemented.
7590921? ago
The proposal is to put forward solutions to the listed problems. What are yours?
7594564? ago
Status quo, migrations work fine.
The problem is that these aren't actually solutions, they create new dangers.
7594585? ago
Alright, I see your point then.
7585011? ago
They are all good rules to have but they need clarification and definitions. You don't want to be defining the specifics after the fact.
7584977? ago
Its been updated, see the bottom link.
7584966? ago
And what's the point really in blocking that but allowing shit like niggers, fat people hate, and other hate subs. If it is legal (e.g. non-nude under 18, but socially undesirable) then doesn't banning it go against the free speech of voat? Isn't it implicitly condemning one (jailbait) while approving of another (hate speech)? Its an interesting insight into what the two admins feel is OK and is not OK.
7608279? ago
We should stop allowing niggers.
7589377? ago
The flip side of posts containing jailbait type pictures is that the subs where these characters hang out become a place for them to meet each other, and then send the explicit/illegal stuff through private messages. I'm not sure what should, or even could be done about that, but I don't like the idea that this stuff is traveling through Voat, even in PMs.
7584901? ago
Fuck the admin of that sub. Banning, censor filled faggot.
7585044? ago
Then don't fucking post in his sub. Block it and move on. I think it's a pretty cool sub, and I try to refrain from downvoting even shitty music that gets posted to that effect.
The blocking feature is really fucking handy. I don't want to see sports faggotry or pre-teen girls, so I block that shit if it appears.
7587953? ago
shill response /|\
7585393? ago
He never removes my music... he even personally thanked me for a post. Why do people dislike him?
7587989? ago
https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/1557110 there ya go
7586627? ago
Because the rules say "Politics~Hate~and~Religion~ Are Unwelcome.", therefore the assholes that make up the vocal majority of Voat's userbase can't post their hateful bullshit there, and they just can't stand the idea of Voat having a sub where they don't control the narrative. Everything HAS to be hate and negativity for them, otherwise they get triggered and scream "Censorship!" like retards.
7603820? ago
I never posted anything like that. All good. Still banned. Nothing was ever deleted, just a ban. No reason associated.
7586657? ago
Hmm... yeah, as long as he's deleting all political, "hateful", or racist content, that's fine by my standards. I always thought of censorship as... say, a board like /v/politics starts silencing a certain perspective (conservative, liberal, or whatever) but otherwise allows political discussion. That's censorship to me.
7587744? ago
That cheers sub also deltes music the owner doesn't like and bans people for it. Check the modlogs.
7586899? ago
He is. There's no political content of any kind on /v/cheers
7585537? ago
No clue. I haven't talked to him all that much, but he's always been cordial when I have.
7587965? ago
https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/1557110
7589661? ago
Except this is about v/cheers lol
7584893? ago
This sounds like a good idea in principal, however spammers and shills tend to have oceans of alts they use for vote manipulation and spamming.
Moderators tend to know the difference between legitimate members of a community and malicious alts, however that important distinction will be difficult to define in a rule or process, especially where voting in involved.
7587294? ago
Yeah... democracy of any kind on subs would be a trainwreck. Too easy to exploit.
Fuck it, if it gets instituted I'd exploit it just to prove how risky it is. Better me taking over a generic sub then handing it back a day later than some SJW taking it just to delete everything.
7588733? ago
Yeah, "fuck working on ways to prevent direct democracy's exploitation and corruption, let's just give up." /s stupid nigger.
7594575? ago
"Socialism is a pretty nice idea in theory, but every time people try it millions die. Maybe we just need to try it again? It might work this time."
Some concepts are inherently flawed and cannot be fixed. Democracy is one of them.
7587422? ago
I like the idea of having a community present arguments for or against a change and ask people to only acknowledge substantiated arguments based on reason rather than up or down votes or baseless personal endorsements.
One thousand up-votes or "Fuck Yeah!" comments aren't as valuable as a single argument based on informed and rational reason.
7587796? ago
The idea is nice, the reality would not be, it's not a rule which could be enforced without making life easy on brigaders. Plenty of losers with too much time on their hands who can run an army of alts writing comments about how niggers should be about positive aspects of african american culture.
As it stands there's nothing preventing mods from making a sticky asking about rule changes.
7584892? ago
We need a way to ban trolls posting the same crappy story to a dozen subs (flooding Voat) under a different username as did happen recently.
7587752? ago
There is no way to do that without limiting legit posting activity.
7587249? ago
Downvote and move on. Quit your whining
7584869? ago
"Sexualized content of minors".
As long nipples or genitals are NOT shown, we should let them stay. That's for REAL children and teenagers. It's a bit creepy but inoffensive. The racists are technically inoffensive too but you're gonna ban them too? I doubt you will.
If you ban /v/lolicon, I swear by God, Zeus, and anything else mankind ever worshipped, you're not gonna be any different than the reddit administrators. I will delete everything that belongs to me. There's no point in staying here if you also lack the capacity of differentiating reality from fiction like them.
And I will hate you for making me waste such a amount of time in this site. There's nothing I hate more than people who make me waste my time.
7586185? ago
Adios motherfucker. Go jack off somewhere else weeb
7585617? ago
don't delete, change course and bring the real ship wreck that was allowed to stay. v/EfficientKilling i will bring the fire. instead of promoting autonomy of people to make choices about their bodies, i will embrace the tyranny in the way that rulers fear most. i will teach people how to kill in a very efficient manner. instead of posting lolis post acid/base reactions, post maps showing building entrances and exits, post directions on how to shape charges, etc.
lolis are downright harmless compared to some of the free speech out there.
7585592? ago
And how do you define something is sexualized? By the intent of the creator or how it is used?
Let's create a sub /v/PrettyGirlsInAds ... and post images of pretty girls in advertisements (toy commercials, school supplies, modeling clothing, old JC Penny catalogs Jr Miss underwear section). I mean, its not sexualizing anything, is it? These are just advertisements that feature young girls under the age of 18. Completely legal and innocent. So so so very innocent.
7585743? ago
It seems innocent. Looking at dressed girls was never illegal.
7586471? ago
Do a image search for "lickable". In fact, let me do that for you: http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/meh.ro6548.jpg
Nevermind, it's innocent enough.
7599028? ago
wtf?
7588727? ago
@Puttitout this user poses a serious fucking issue (as many have expressed) on three's wording. you're creating the same grey area for slippery slope that reddit did. you're suggesting we kill the site. some have said.
7587268? ago
Creepy, but not illegal (at least not where I live) and not putting voat in danger.
It'd make a good /v/wtf post though
7788032? ago
Legality isn't what got /r/jailbait banned. It was moral crusading.
7791926? ago
The question is what standards voat should set.
7587142? ago
careful now, don't wanna get permabanned because you posted a completely legal advertisement.
7586844? ago
you trying to say they aren't lickable or something? bryers creamsickles are the best.
7586514? ago
Blame the advertisers if you think they are guilty
7584835? ago
Dox Policy
I like it, but it lacks enforcement seeing how there is only 2 super mods. I think it should express that it is also the duty of subverse mods to enforce these rules, seeing as it's impossible to post dox dump on voat if no subverse will allow it. I'm aware this requires trust in mods, it appears as though corrupted mods simply do not make it far at all in voat so I don't see a big problem with giving them this duty.
Our Community Policy
Alright, nice. This hits it home. The rarity of this rule being broken requires little enforcement effort. This rule alone should justify any further /v/niggers or /v/chicago indecent. However the term "Out Community Policy" is to vague. I think a name such as "Moderator-User Relationship Policy" is more suited. With a name like that we could amend additional clauses to the policy regarding moderators and users.... which will likely occur sooner or later.
Catch All Policy
I don't like this one, but I get what you're trying to do. Perhaps rename it to "Generic Subverse Policy" and let it read something like
As in the topic "vehicles" has includes subsets of each brand of cars. And those subsets can not be discriminated against. This also means "news" can not filter either liberal and conservative subsets.
Sexualized Content of Minors
Okay here we go. For questions like "what about nude culture?" or "what about loli?". You need to specify those subjects specifically because those questions are actually OK under US law.
Sorry to break the one comment one rule rule.
7584834? ago
Generic subverses shouldn't be able to leave any valid posts out. v/vehicles should never be allowed to censor Toyota posts, that should happen in v/vehicles2, v/Japan-hate, v/americancars or v/toyotahate. Like v/European is fine as is with their special rules, since v/Europe exists as the catch-all.
Don't make too many rules, the idiots trying to sabotage will find loop-holes. Right now, we have Atko & Puttitout being judge, jury and executioner, which is the best defence against creative trouble-makers, like that idiot who spent months building an image to take over a sub. We trust you two to take care of special cases.
7585019? ago
I agree. I want to flood /v/pics with gore and porn.
7585145? ago
A saboteur finding loopholes.
7585208? ago
You mean being smarter than you. We should play chess someday, It'd be fun.
7585384? ago
Not smart, just destructive.
7585471? ago
You can't make
eggsomelets without cracking eggs.None of this discussion would be happening right now if not for what I did over the weekend.
Edit: A word
7585523? ago
Love how you were dealt with swiftly, after all those months of work. Voat 1 - you 0. ;) Now its time for you to go back.
7585684? ago
No. I decided a couple weeks prior I didn't want to mod /v/niggers anymore. So if you think I give a shit about what happens or how things turned out, I don't really care. You all think I give a shit about this much more than I do, or that you all had some great victory over me. You didn't.
Prior to that, I was almost entirely hands off, the other four mods did
almostall the work. I just set up the rules, and made the sidebar. I didn't even implement CSS (mainly because I thought it was a security risk). I knew eventually I'd hand it over because I didn't want my good nameworking for the Soros Foundationworking in private industry to become associated with a racist internet forum.7585786? ago
Lol, no. You spent months crafting the fake image, then got... what, 2 days of trolling out of it? Even your SRS/SBBH buddies will laugh at you. You are a joke!
You got dealt with, got dealt with twice in one day. Beautiful. No loophole for you, haha!
7584817? ago
GUYS I'M JUST KIDDING IT WAS ME THE WHOLE TIME
7584799? ago
^ changed my mind, that was definitely me
7584798? ago
Whoosh. Was afraid he was going to say we had to wear pants while Voating.
7584795? ago
What if John Podesta signs up for Voat? What happens to /v/pizzagate?
I really don't like most of these.
7584782? ago
I don't care too much about the other policies on here, but the one I'm most concerned with is the one on doxing. Please implement this, as I've had many dox attempts on me and these people just reign free while subverse moderators look the other way. There needs to be a clear way to report this stuff, along with a way to attack evidence (that can be confirmed later by looking at account logs, etc).
7584775? ago
Oh yeah. I hate a few users on here.
7584748? ago
So you're going to allow brigading? If a larger sub like FatPeopleHate with 31,000 users decide to fuck with a smaller sub, like FatPeopleAcceptance with 100 subs, you're going to allow them to do that?
Because that is what ProtectVoat did to /v/Chicago and there has been zero repercussions of that. Once CANCEL-CAT-FACTS made his post in ProtectVoat about what the mod of /v/Chicago had done (even though there were zero rules stating what he did was wrong), he had gotten brigaded by numerous users from that sub. Those individuals hadn't participated in the sub prior to that. Including one or more people who repeatedly created accounts to avoid bans with the sold purpose to force through harassment and intimidation what they wanted (again, despite there being absolutely no written rules or guidelines for that mod to know what he did was wrong).
And on that note, what about ban evasions?
Also, it seems completely unfair to WSIMBR (cough) that you're defining these rules after the fact of applying them against him. I would encourage you to look up 'ex post facto' laws. That was convicting a person of a crime one day, and the next day actually making what they did a crime
7591805? ago
I have a feeling you are referring to the comment raid by /u/kimmykitten amongst others who posted comment spam to put pressure on the mods. This isn't so bad compared to what could happen if we had sub voting as some are suggesting.
7585038? ago
That's not "brigading" obviously people who frequent certain subs feel the same way about certain issues and may voat the same way. You're basically saying people subbed to some verses shouldn't be allowed to voat how they want lest someone else do the same.
I think posts saying "go to this thread and voat like this" should be discouraged. But not removed. This ain't reddit. Anyway I didn't see anything like that in your examples.
7585346? ago
That exactly is brigading. If someone in FPH posts something like, "That douchebag mod of FPA has a new fattty girlfriend." And the members of that sub, without ever having stepped foot in FPA prior, flood that sub with posts and comments attacking that person and the sub ... that is brigading. Brigading doesn't need to be explicitly commanded in order for it to be brigading.
7585706? ago
You're going beyond trying to censor what people say and even censor how they vote.
Screw off back to reddit with that.
7584980? ago
v/chicago mod was a bitch-ass saboteur and was going to be brigaded by every Voater as they realized, dont pin it on PV.
7585081? ago
Thats bullshit and you know it. Nowhere were these guidelines posted, so he had no idea the shit storm that erupted. And instead of brigading the site, he should have been told and let him reconsider. Absent any guidelines or rules like this, the community attacked him and tried to use force and intimidation to get him to change which is bullshit. It is just as bad as what he did, and even worse, as it was being done by the masses. Vigilante justice is bullshit justice.
7585173? ago
You are full of shit and you know it. He was a trolling troll who got dealt with.
7585409? ago
He tried to improve his sub and had good intentions but went about it the wrong way. ProtectVoat however is just a hub to brigade other subs and force their will onto other people through intimidation and harassment.
It's the difference between manslaughter where you kill a person accidentally through reckless behavior, and murder when you kill another human being with malice aforethought. And there is a reason those two crimes are punished differently.
7585429? ago
How circlejerky of you to try that route. He was a trolling troll who got dealt with.
7584746? ago
really? I find /v/canada to be stupendously racist and xenophobic, but I can post whatever I want, and it will usually just be downvoted.
7589549? ago
Check the rules in the sidebar. Those are not cool
7584937? ago
check the mod logs
7584739? ago
Changed my mind again. He's a faggot.
7584725? ago
Dang mang, that ain't even one of the options up there.
7584674? ago
Great start but can we address
CCP farms
Bot posters/spammers
Spammers/ advertisers in general
Squatters
Kthx
7584671? ago
Love the changes, thank you for addressing these concerns.
7584654? ago
Yes to all beside the last one. If something is not illegal then it should stay... or we should ban women in bikini because "we do not feel that this content increases participation or is conversational in nature" and also is illegal in many muslim countries.
7584653? ago
All of this looks great. Thanks for being involved again.
I think a (soon to be) big problem is point farming subs. Lately there's been new ones that don't even pretend to be an actual sub about anything other than one user building up alts. And with downvoating restrictions users don't even have any way to fight against it. It's only a matter of time before actual users are getting massively dv'd by one malicious user with many alts. I don't think users would mind a rule against subverses that exist solely for that purpose.
I also would like there to be a way to limit alts. We have anon subs. So throwaways aren't needed. They're only good for one troll to multiply their voting power which essentially makes legitimate users voats worthless.
I'm not sure what is even possible to do in addressing these. And I understand if you are thinking about it but don't want to show your hand regarding solutions. It would be nice to hear that this is a problem under consideration.
7584648? ago
Dox, the Banhammer, a question: what if I were to indirectly dox another user or myself? I do believe there were a couple aspiring writers who used their given name in their username. isn't that doxxing?
I could tell you my username in this post or say which sub I mod and indirectly give away my anonymity without realizing it. Start bitching about the warrant canary (looking at you mr.sanegoatiswear) or pull a mh101 (with the keyboard warriors LOL!!!!) or pull an amalek (an amalek)
Does that warrant a banhammering? These are issues that will need addressed in the future because they've already happened in one form or another
7584620? ago
https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/1557110
@puttitout what's voat's stance on reddit cancer in private subs?
7584917? ago
As much of a cancer as SaneGoat is, I don't stand for banning him.
7587948? ago
@LockeProposal is reddit cancer. Goati dindu nuthin.
7587755? ago
He very obviously abuse the voating on this site
7587926? ago
lies.
i have done no such thing
7588079? ago
Only lying to yourself if its you
7584586? ago
wait how is /v/canada censored? I've posted plenty there, and it's pretty dead, but I've never been censored by the mods. Plenty of downvotes of course...
7584577? ago
Encrypt → Cloud (preferably under your control) → Wipe → Move → Download → Decrypt.
7584891? ago
Lmao
7585857? ago
kek indeed
7584916? ago
Problem?
7585188? ago
I don't think any cloud is safe. I assume all the pipes to that cloud are watched.
7602425? ago
Owncloud?
7602496? ago
If it doesn't go past your router its basically a fancy hard drive.
7602564? ago
Lol yes, but you can open a port on your router and use it outside your network.
It's all encrypted (for what that's worth) and your data is stored on your own hardware.
Its not perfect but it is a thing. I prefer to SCP anything I need from my home server.
7602645? ago
I could be wrong but I could also be right too. Its up to each individual to weigh up the risks associated with whatever they are doing.
7602788? ago
Agreed. No data is safe as soon as it leaves your mind.
I can't remember who said it, but the only secure computer is one that's switched off and encased in concrete at the bottom of your basement.
7586955? ago
Hence why he said to encrypt the data prior to uploading it to the cloud.
7586319? ago
SpiderOak is..
7585604? ago
Nextcloud. Also, see step 1.
7584571? ago
@puttitout and @atko thank for listening to this https://voat.co/v/whatever/1554905 but you have to deal with many more issues.
maybe on a seperate anon sticky in a few days.
but you've got rules like the severe heavy voting-restricting rule already written into voat's code on git... just written to "false" so it's not activated...
why if you're always so over worked, busy, and doing voat for free....
did you have time to code this if you weren't going to do anything without the community's consent?
7584514? ago
At the time of subverse creation, there should be a fully outlined "what is this subverse for" section. If the mods do not adhere to it them they are subject for removal.
The problem with defining the subverse in the sidebar is that it can be changed at the owners whim.
Also, if we look at reddit, the mods of r/news don't allow local news posts (except for those that might push their agenda). To use your example of v/vehicles, there should not be any ambiguity when it comes to what constitutes a vehicle.
7584488? ago
Sorry, I meant to say duck wit it
7584485? ago
How is this realistically going to be determined? Voting is not an accurate way to gauge user opinion, and what about very small subs or subs that have almost no discussion on them at all, such as music or porn subs?
Why? Any moderator that does this is witch hunted by the community to the point where they can't participate on the site anyway. This is going to make deletions even harder for moderators.
If this is the case, will you be going back over previous doxxing episodes and banning the people involved?
7584447? ago
Pure tacos.
7584438? ago
Wouldn't this be a generic name sub under the "catch all policy" section
7584437? ago
My worries are that the doxing and minors section will be used to shut down /v/pizzagate and (more likely) the other pizzasgates. Reddit has already used those two to do that anything posted about Alefantis or anyone else (allegedly) involved is "doxing" and any photos are "sexualized content". I think that there has to be some explicit divider between "this guy sucks, here's his phone number" and "here's something I think is newsworthy, including that this person owns this business at this location" situations. (I also think the sexualized content thing is mind boggling. "There aren't any pedos here, but you can't post the photos that they've posted because they sexualize children." Wha?)
I'm down with the voting on rules and mods thing if we can finally do something about the vote farming / botting.
7590405? ago
V/pizzagate should work on stopping @hecho and his pedo shit. But nah, pizzagate like talking about pizzagate ....
7591508? ago
ive already stopped my pedo shit
7592086? ago
You him? Even if not, thank you. Many of us could give a shit what people do in their privacy of their homes but having shit like that here was too much. This is the first time I have ever pinged hecho. But I agreed with all those who did.
7587447? ago
He did stated that the rules are to protect voat users, and not people outside of voat.
7589220? ago
So long as it's only to protect other voaters, this rule is entirely fair and I will back it 100%.
7624659? ago
What happens if someone gets doxxed and then it's later discovered they're a Voater? If they get doxxed (or threatened with doxxing) and create an account to shield themselves?
7629893? ago
We can only control what happens on this website. That means the only way this rule can work is doxxing accounts is banned. Tying a real person to an account the other way around would still be the same thing. If you're thinking of a news article, we can't control news. I've never seen "Steve Jobs, otherwise known as 420_blaze_it_xxxxx___ on reddit," on a news story.
7598522? ago
Ditto.
7596069? ago
Do we not assume many who are the unhappy subjects of Voat users' investigatory or editorial subverses are not also Voat users lurking here? If true, might it be important to clarify such a rule to allow publicly available info to be Voat published?
7589681? ago
This. As long as what Voaters are doing isn't illegal, the rest of the Net can go fuck itself. Take care of our own house, and the rest of the internet can do the same. Reddit trying to play Savior of the Interwebz is part of the reason for their decline.
7587244? ago
Who owns VOAT?... Who is investing in VOAT? Are there NEW investors? Is it considered DOXXing when there are no records iinvolved (legal definition). When a jackass has two personalities online is it DOXXing to reveal the connection?.. This removes a SHIT TON of journalism out of citizen journalism.
7587088? ago
that is one of the many problems with laws against child porn in the first place. say your neighbor is fucking their kid and you see it though an open window. you take a picture to prove it. guess what? you are now guilty of manufacturing child porn. if you show that pic to the police there is a chance you spend over a decade in prison for having done so.
7586669? ago
The Doxxing rule only applies to other voaters. Not to politician's associates. You'd only get in trouble if you said @ILoveKids is John Podesta and here is his phone number. Just posting Podesta's number wouldn't break the rules.
7585307? ago
public figures are generally exempted from privacy laws. that's where the line should be drawn, not investigations. info that people (anybody) willing post to the internet (e.g social media posts) is also generally exempt from privacy laws.
7587001? ago
What is a public figure? A large number of people that might rightly end up part of community investigation may not be a public figure in most people's book.
And the, "public information posted by them" exception is essentially what doxing is. On one hand the public figures rule would be too strict, and the social media rule would be under strict to the point of making the rule moot and applied selectively.
It's just easier to forget any doxing rule and say we're allowed to discuss people on the internet. Which is pretty fucking reasonable. Also literally censorship in by pretty much the most obvious definition.
7584427? ago
I find loli or whatever it is called disgusting but it is art , this masturbating bitch is like 14 yet it is a famous painting by Tiziano
7587524? ago
TFW your kid sees her sister jacking off and throws up in the toybox
7584424? ago
OHMG THANKYOU @PUTTITOUT FOR ACTUALLY HEARING THE CALL!
7584422? ago
While i do not look at this material, nor do i support it, i do vividly remember the /r/jailbait debacle. Keep this in mind when making decisions on the matter.
7584414? ago
I am usually all about "just create another sub and do what you want" but after the Chicago crap I think some things should be considered the same as default subs. Those would obviously be subs named after cities, states, countries, etc. Meaning no stupid rules for them.
7584402? ago
How are those different from the ones we have now? Aren't all of these already in place?
7585015? ago
Yes, doxing and sexualized content of minors are both current rules. They are included here for discussion purposes.
7584351? ago
Why would anyone go to Canada, eh?
7586252? ago
If you have to ask, we don't want you here anyway.
7586246? ago
steal our fucking welfare money because trudeau is cuck
7584526? ago
MAPLE SYRUP.
7584340? ago
I am opposed to the restriction on doxing. I am perfectly fine with the other proposed rules or minor variations of them.
7584335? ago
I have no idea if it even exists, but does this mean that /v/jailbait or another sub with legal and clothed under age girls would be banned? Because I recall the great purge of legal pictures of teenage girls on reddit to be the beginning of the end. As long as the content is legal, censorship is censorship.
7584330? ago
For the first one: about doxing, you should probably hash that one out, a little more, before enacting it.
For instance, maybe I know someone else on Voat, and in casual conversation, mention their name, or something -- nothing malicious, just a mistake. That can be taken as against the rules, and become a permanent ban because I have a friend. If I had a week, I wouldn't have enough time to go over all of the exceptions which could be taken out of hand, and ruin this site.
I agree that doxing needs to be dealt with, but the way you've worded it makes it to obtuse, and too eligible for abuse.
7584327? ago
The two rules about moderators: I absolutely love it. Maybe set more defined rules, as in:
If you leave these too vague, they'll be abused, like the way past mods have tried to abuse Voat rules before. People are cunning, and you have to be just a little more cunning.
7584318? ago
I feel like this needs more clarifying
7584300? ago
what is and is not "sexualizing minors"? i have seen the term "sexualize" used to describe pretty much anything that be construed as "attractive" (a picture of a young attractive girl in a bikini is "sexualized" the same type of bikini, the same pose, but a fat old woman, not sexualized). can i post images of non-nude girls not in sexual poses but are otherwise simply pretty people? also can i post cartoon stuff that is blatant true sexualization?
i want to know the lines i am living inside of. i don't intend to break your policy, but at the same time i believe that censorship is a creeping issue and a slippery slope. the latest slips have been because of vague statements such as "sexualize". i would agree that depictions of sex acts are "sexualized", but i would disagree on damn near everything other than that.
7587319? ago
Anyone that defends nearly naked kids is a fucking pedo, period. The downvote count on my comment will represent said pedophiles
7587521? ago
anyone who is so worried about sexual orientation and not action is a thought police which is the slope to totalitarian slavery. you may be upset at pedo's but that doesn't make you better than them.
7588523? ago
And there's the first pedo speaking up. As far as action? Way ahead of ya. I've sent many to jail, and I'd vote for castration at the very least. If you're going to victimize a child you deserve it back ten fold.
7588609? ago
i've talked girls into prosecuting people who coerced them myself but only two. but i still advocate for autonomy. there are those who push people into doing things they don't want to do (which is wrong), and there are those who have unsanctioned but otherwise healthy relationships (where the law is wrong).
7590570? ago
How in the ever-loving fuck can you think a relationship with a girl that isn't old enough to know better can be a healthy relationship? Pedos are always trying to justify what they do because they don't see it as wrong. Not once do they consider the long term effects it will have once she grows up & realizes what that relationship actually was. This is why it's fucked up. Only pedos defend it.
7590782? ago
i don't if they aren't old enough to know better. i only am accepting of it if they know what they are doing. i just believe that IQ is a better indicator than age is. as for long term effects, studies have been done on those things, maybe you should look into them.
7591048? ago
And maybe you should stop fantasizing about kids being legit lovers ya sick fuck
7591616? ago
i'll try not too, but you know goats like kids.
7584297? ago
for the dox stuff be careful of policing jokes and trolling. More user control of subs is good. catch all is good. Degeneracy is bad so I support zero tolerance on the last rule
7587329? ago
humans are born as sexual creatures with sexual organs. degeneracy is when moral authoritarians feel it is their god given right to enslave other people and force them to live by their own personal moral code. what is worse, allowing someone to make dumb decisions or enslaving them and taking away all their freedom so they can't make dumb decisions?
7587931? ago
leave children out of it
7588072? ago
out of what? consideration for their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? i don't agree that they should be left out of it. i don't support your type of degeneracy.
7588378? ago
because their brains aren't developed enough to consent to anything. They're our future, not sextoys
7588529? ago
if they can understand they can make informed consent. if they can't understand then they can't give informed consent. informed consent is the line of morality on that. legal consent is the line of the law. many laws are wrong and are kept in place by propagation of myths and indoctrination. "developed" is bullshit word. it means different things. if their brain isn't developed doesn't that mean that it should be legal to abort them? in the medical terminology the brain finishes development right before it goes into the atrophy phase, that is probably the context you are speaking about. in reality the brain continues to change throughout the life and is not finished "developing" until death where it starts to decay.
what is important is if they can understand the decision they are making, and the likely potential outcomes of that decision and to understand the risks of that decision. such a decision is considered an informed decision. to agree to such a decision is to give informed consent.
most adults can't make informed banking decisions, because they don't understand economics. they are allowed to give legal consent to such decisions anyway. i don't advocate for that regarding children and sex. i believe it is abuse of adults by the banking sector.
7588573? ago
stop trying to rationalize child rape
7588648? ago
i don't rationalize child rape, i advocate change in law to remove the term "rape" from being unjustly applied. an informed decision to engage in sex is a legal technicality where the law is wrong. i like how the laws in the netherlands were in the 1980's and how the laws in germany are now.
stop trying to frame people doing things that you don't like as rape.
7589935? ago
again, you're talking about children
7590339? ago
again i am talking about informed consent and do you deny that you are your parents' child? who is not a child of somebody?
7590437? ago
yeah and minors lack the knowledge, understanding, and the frontal lobe development to make such a determination you sick fuck just kill yourself already
7590476? ago
many states and countries disagree, so do i. i hope one day to see the laws of the US to be similar if not exactly the same as the laws of the netherlands in the 1980's.
7590637? ago
and I hope one day to see degenerates like you put to death, painfully, it's better than you deserve
7590753? ago
lucky me, i get to just look up gore videos and see people like you destroyed all the time.
7591468? ago
your life is merely an exercise in regret, even if you won't take my advice and end it now it's inevitable
7584294? ago
The rule about minors: now, I don't want to play devil's advocate, but I feel like I have to. There are subverses here that tread that line, REALLY closely. I don't like it, and I don't like what they stand for, but I just blocked the subverses. But, just because I (and others) don't like it, that doesn't mean we should ban people/subverses for something in a "grey area."
On top of that, these subverses seem to be pretty good at self-regulating themselves. They probably don't want to get banned, and banning them will churn up another Eddit/Pao situation here on Voat. If it's legitimate CP, then ban away, as that's illegal... but rendered/drawn media isn't real, and falls into that "grey area" I don't think anyone should touch.
Hell, women in bikinis are a "grey area" in some countries... the only difference here is that there are fewer of those countries, and thus that "grey area" is smaller. Would you ban any subverse that has images, real or not, of a woman who isn't in a burka, because it is a legal "grey area" somewhere? That's just censorship.
Unless it's illegal, I'd say to leave them be. Once something truly illegal pops up, take the appropriate steps to mitigate the problem. This stance has worked so far, and coupled with the "block" button, seems to be the best middle-road.
7586692? ago
Voat is incorporated in the US and is subject to US law.
7587616? ago
And there's no US law prohibiting drawings. There are individual state laws, but not a national law regarding the subject.
I don't like it any more than you, but to pull arbitrary "reasons" to ban content because you don't like it, you start going down a slippery slope.
7588342? ago
Legal in all US states and territories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
7584253? ago
Run, @hecho! They're on to you!
7584228? ago
No.
7584905? ago
That's why I'll never make a comment about something in a way I wouldn't admit to saying in person
7587414? ago
You say that like most people that get doxxed were being assholes as opposed to just disagreeing with an SJW.
7584200? ago
What is the legal basis behind banning doxing?
I mean, we can all agree that none of us want to be doxed and it's a crappy experience... but is there a legal need to do so?
Sincere question.
7587282? ago
Don't know if it's a legal thing, but I think it's better for the site.
7584271? ago
"Cyber bullying"/harassment laws being put into place I expect. Site operators may be held liable financially due to lawsuits related to it also. Probably best to have a policy in place to help mitigate that.
7584449? ago
So, doxing for the purpose of investigation should be legit? Not voat users... but FBI and CIA agents and stuff.
7586724? ago
Its one thing if you discover someone's identity, its another if you then post that information link it to them.
7586782? ago
Secrecy is the way in which criminals avoid accountability.
I believe that posting someone's information that allows the public to tie them to criminal activity, when law enforcement is in on it or ignores their crimes, should be fair game.
Example, CTR is taking foreign money to astroturf the Internet without registering as foreign agents. It is illegal and technically treason. That should be exposed and prosecuted. If not in court, then in the public arena because there is no other avenue for justice.
7587143? ago
What law is being broken from being paid by a govt to post shit on the internet? What law says Saudi Arabia can't pay me $50 a day to go stand on a street corner talking about how much I love Saudi Arabia?
Also, the doxxing rule only says that you can't dox a Voat user. If you have their personal information and proof of crimes, you can post that, you just can't ping them when you do. If you say "John Smith of Alaska is a pedophile and the sheriff's dept won't prosecute him cause they're pedos too.", that's fine, just don't include John Smith's Voat username.
7587243? ago
Actually, attempts to influence policy and taking foreign money is a no-no. They call it the Voorhees Act and failure to report as a foreign agent is treason.
7596210? ago
I can't find anything about a "Voorhees Act" in google, duckduckgo, or any other search engine. It seems to me to be a violation of free speech if someone couldn't give praise to a foreign government without being accused of treason.
Also, foreign agents can't commit treason by virtue of being a foreign agent. Treason is only committed by those owing allegiance to the United States and if you are a foreign agent, you don't owe allegiance to the United States.
7605554? ago
My first google result...
http://www.freelawreporter.org/procases/F2/253/253.F2d.312.16891.html
7611185? ago
Wished it showed for me, I got a bunch of college bullshit when I used google.
That was very informative, thank you.
7585262? ago
public figures are generally exempted from privacy laws. that's where the line should be drawn, not investigations.
7586050? ago
My understanding is that the investigation extends to pivate individuals and that prohibiting such investigation would kill it. If the public figures operate via private individuals they would be pretty well be protected against investigation.
7584527? ago
Personally that would be a grey area if it included personal info about someone other than themselves. For example, divulging an agents name and work related info would probably be fine. Divulging their personal home information probably not. Mainly because the second one brings in the possibility of doxxing their family and other relatives who may not be involved at all in their work bullshit. Not sure how the site operators would feel about that.
7584661? ago
My feeling is that the Supreme Court, with their ruling regarding the Pentagon Papers, makes it clear that this type of information is allowed to be shared (see tabs)...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16gnEcvPVN3Hxf0pOwpJxQrmWzAhaNSks44H91WweQmA/edit#gid=277867554
Of course, the reality of ending up in court over it and having to pay a $25,000 retainer might be crappy, but I feel like Voat shouldn't be held responsible for what users post... especially when there are only two people running the show.
7584195? ago
I agree with your further argument if it's openly shared info it shouldn't be restricted like that
7584863? ago
I thought the idea behind facebook was exclusivity?
7585144? ago
Was that a joke?
7584164? ago
No to all. Get off your lazy ass and implement moderator impeachment by the community. We don't need more restrictions here.
7584159? ago
That canary notice is 3 months old. It says refer to last edit time, which is exactly when? This only tells me that as of three months ago the canary was alive.
7585058? ago
Check the edit time on that thread. That IS the canary.
7584308? ago
It has been updated twice in the last few days. Once 2 days ago and once a few minutes ago.
https://voat.co/v/announcements/1330806
Last edit time: 38 minutes ago on 1/11/2017 7:08:29 PM
7585543? ago
Clarified, thank you. That was off screen on my browser.
7584152? ago
Yes to all.
7584145? ago
Disagree with this:
I mean, stuff like drawings may or may not depict a child, but who is decide if the person in the drawing is a minor? If it's only concerning real life individuals, than I'm for it.
7584328? ago
Sorry but v/loli offers nothing of value to the community, toddlers and small children particularly, even drawn, in sexualized scenarios is of no use, causes controversy, grosses people out, and brings allot of unwanted negative attention to everyone here from the creators to the participants.
Besides, isn't there a site or two dedicated to such like Deviant Art? This site is about maintaining free speech and open dialog, not seeing who can be sexually enticed by images that are clearly meant to resemble toddlers or small children.
7594041? ago
Let's try this with a different subject, shall we? A flip of the script, if you will...
Don't call yourself someone who respects free speech and open dialog, then turn around and advocate censoring speech and discussion you don't like. You'd pitch your shit if it was /v/niggers we were talking about doing this to, but just because it's legal content that you don't like and find disgusting, you'd ban it...you make me sicker than the lolicons do, and that's saying something. And you consider yourself a Voat Goat? Pathetic...
7588853? ago
Look at all the pedos in this thread .... fucking unreal... and this from a 'community' that hates muslims so much because they are pedos .... pot meet kettle.
7594212? ago
Ad hominem and appeal to hypocrisy fallacies are not arguments.
7599680? ago
It's not an 'argument' it's a statement.
7599752? ago
FTFY.
7599848? ago
Seems pretty solid to me. Look through this thread, you can't tell me grown men are looking at photos of little girls because they like the 'fashion' .... it's a sexual thing plain and simple, which boils down to pedo shit.
7600079? ago
Loli content is literally a victimless crime, and not even a crime, at that, which just makes it victimless. You're trying to pull guilt by association. And you still haven't explained why cartoons are protected under the 1st Amendment, if you want to claim they aren't protected speech.
7600222? ago
I never said anything about protected speech, free speech or otherwise, I just said they're pedos.... which is pretty clear. I haven't called for anything to be banned, just saying, they're pedos... when you are looking at pictures of kids for sexual pleasure, cartoon or not, it's pedophilia. Call it what it is.
7600295? ago
So what? The lolicons aren't hurting anyone except themselves. What do you care if a bunch of losers want to sit around jerking it to lines on paper instead of going out and finding themselves a real woman?
7600362? ago
So I can't call them pedos ? ... does their harming someone directly have something to do with what I can say to them ? They get upset being called pedos but it's exactly what they are. As I'm sure you are well aware free speech doesn't protect anyone from being called out, it just means you won't be arrested or silenced. If they don't like being called pedos then they shouldn't do pedo shit.
7600448? ago
You enter a discussion thread about implementation of rules, namely whether or not to ban certain content, and then you want to complain when your comments get viewed in that context.
I see, so you're just a troll, then. What's the matter, CTR not paying you enough, now that the election is over and those Soros-bucks have dried up?
7600558? ago
Everyone who disagrees with you is a shill, paid, or a troll right . . . makes perfect sense. I didn't complain about anything, I just clarified what I meant.
Looks like I found one of the pedos.....
7600869? ago
Nah, just an advocate for free speech that mistook someone who just wanted to call names for someone having a serious discussion about the site.
7585303? ago
It's what makes Voat different from Reddit. Go to Reddit if you get offended easily. Sorry. Let me rephrase that slightly. Fuck off to Reddit if you get offended easily you fucking nigger scum. It's because Voat isn't heavily policed that it is attractive in the first place. Don't turn this place into Reddit. Retard.
7584377? ago
Drawing is part of free speech.
So we should ban all drawings? I mean, who decides what looks like a minor? If someone complains that think "think" it's a minor, does that content get removed? The issue a rule that can be abused heavily.
7584622? ago
No drawing is not "speech", the rule is quite clear, no "sexualized media of minors (under the age of 18) or any media depicting minors in sexual situations".... I doubt if someone posted an image of teen girls playing volleyball in bikinis would be a problem, unless someone is circling where their bikini has slipped offering up a creep-shot.
Love the Slippery Slope fallacy, but the people in charge of this site, Atko & PuttItOut, or whoever they've got things delegated to are pretty solid and consistent. Consistent in allowing actual free speech, dissent, etc.. Regardless the subverses that are now potentially threatened are toxic to the site, on a multitude of levels, worse than anything else. And when you can go to some of those subverses described, and chase links, and find allot of previously available images were removed from the host site for being questionable, it's a rather strong indicator that what was posted wasn't quite legal.
Could the rule be abused, every bit as much as the other side of the spectrum and perverts trying to push the envelope further and further and posting ever more pornographic or suggestive material depicting minors. Though while the side that wants to push the envelope has a long rich history of such, the controllers of this site do not.
I do feel you on the fact that some 20 year olds may look like 16 year olds, & vise versa, but why not just go to a porn site, which the internet is still about 85% composed of, and check that crap out there?
Plenty of "Free Speech" out there to choke your chicken to.
7594078? ago
Then explain why cartoons and other drawings are protected under the 1st Amendment.
7584245? ago
Why are you interested in pictures of sexualise minors?
7584162? ago
I assume drawings would not be covered. Otherwise I agree that it's a big problem
7584368? ago
I doubt that something would be allowed just because it was a drawing. Drawings showing a baby being raped would probably be verboten under the rule.
7586915? ago
Why? Nobody is being exploited to produce it. That means we have to ban all drawings that depict child nudity even if it's not explicitly sexual?
7585509? ago
Brooke Greenburg age 18 what if i were to draw a picture of her having sex? it might look like a baby being raped, but really it was a picture of an 18 year old adult.
7584272? ago
Why are you?
7584144? ago
Great point
7589029? ago
How about giving people the ability to fully block the people spamming them. People like amalek and spartacus upvote so they can shitpost at will. You are moving towards involving the community more and removing mod influence so embrace it and give people that power. Then all you need is janitors to come along and remove the rest later. Yea some people dont like the block button because they mistakenly think most will use it to hide dissenting views but its more about giving people content control. Maybe even investors would like that too.
7587909? ago
How so? Do you want to limit free speech @Puttitout? Voting on voat is surely free speech if liking on facebook is protected speech in the U.S. don't abridge it.
mashable story on it ew, archived
7595275? ago
The law says you can't be fired for making political statements on FB. No-one is getting fired here, the idea is to limit abuse of the CCP threshold, which was originally implemented in order to limit spam and brigading.
7597197? ago
"censor all to stop a few"
is your argument
and it CLEARLY falls into the category of
"give up freedom for security, and you shall lose both, and deserve neither."
so take your slippery slope
and take it back to reddit, you bootlipped nigger's single tooth.
7603349? ago
No, "censor all to stop a few" is not my argument. That is a straw man. And there is no slippery slope implied by my comment, but, clearly, you are engaging in false equivalence: you're implying that implementing a CCP threshold is the same with regard to free speech as firing people for liking a political candidate on Facebook. They are nowhere near the same, and implying that one leads to the other (if that is what you were in fact implying) is setting up a slippery slope fallacy.
7584506? ago
How so? Do you want to limit free speech @Puttitout? Voting on voat is surely free speech if liking on facebook is protected speech in the U.S. don't abridge it.
mashable story on it ew, archived
7584851? ago
An upvoat isn't speech.
7587057? ago
It is expression, however.
7588125? ago
It's expression of an deeply illegal, deeply immoral, deeply unethical act. It is indefensible.
7588700? ago
I feel like you haven't properly followed the conversation.
This conversation goes:
Are you saying that upvoting is a deeply illegal, deeply immoral and deeply unethical act that is indefensible?
Because that doesn't seem to make much sense.
7589111? ago
You're right, this was to some pedo thing
7589223? ago
Thought it might have been. Comment chains on these big threads can get pretty convoluted.
7589633? ago
Yeah! It was a clusterfuck! Yeah! It really fucked us up!
7584621? ago
Bots don't have free speech. Yet.
7584135? ago
Yes to everything.
Really like this direction.
7586527? ago
I bet you do, you dirty commie bastard.
7588885? ago
So much edge!
7584130? ago
Why does vote need new rules? If you implement this bullshit arbitrary censorship we might as well go back to reddit.
7584291? ago
Found the SJW.
7584214? ago
Because SJW shills from Reddit are coming in here and destroying Voat. Like they did with /v/niggers or /v/Chicago. Moderators aren't the ones to decide what kind of content should be allowed on a verse, the users will decide for themselves.
7587221? ago
apparently they infiltrated the mods as well. the first thing SJW shills on reddit banned was jailbait.
7584446? ago
The thing is though is ; The admins have given a very anti censorship feature in the ability to view deleted comments and submissions. That is a big difference from reddit.
7587515? ago
I imagine that could be changed easily.
7585135? ago
So you want your verses to be taken over by the very same cancer as Reddit?
7584193? ago
These rules aren't all new they just haven't been followed. Some are in the user agreement.
7584126? ago
Everything sounds good. Thanks for being wonderful admins
7584117? ago
How would that be measured? Do you think there may be problems with voat manipulation possibly?
7586111? ago
It can't be done. Folks will learn to work whatever system you come up with. You'll just end up wasting resources trying to make the system work that would be better spent dealing with problems as they come up. Short of some sort of verifiable voter registration system, you can't have a fair system.
Voat has no need for it anyway because we've already voted for the site owner/admins by creating accounts here. It's great that you want to ask for feedback, but delegating some decisions down to the community will be counterproductive at best, but most likely will end in disaster. There's a reason democracies fail.
7585729? ago
Voter fraud would be one of my concerns with this as well. We see tons of shill accounts and fake accounts and alts on here, upvoat farms etc...
It seems to me it would be very difficult to distinguish real users from the inevitable multitude of fakes coming in and trying to manipulate the site.
7587787? ago
I think the cogence of the arguments should be used. No matter how many accounts someone has, quantity is not going to make up for quality.
7584777? ago
Perhaps a polling function that has a similar CCP requirement like downvoting does, so the owner or moderator of a subverse can configure a poll to receive this community feedback?
For this to work I would highly suggest a rule and/or action being put in place to remove subverses that are clearly CCP/SCP farms, so that poll manipulation would be kept to a minimum. In this case a CCP/SCP farm refers to a subverse whose main function is clearly to illegitimately increase the CCP/SCP of users who participate in them and who additionally may also have extremely CCP requirements for downvoting users and content within.
Additionally if such a feature would to be implemented, past polls should be unable to be deleted or altered once launched and they should be browsable as long as that subverse continues to exist.
7584513? ago
I don't think it will be algorithmic, at least at first. It is usually very clear which way the community wants to go. The default action (if there isn't a clear direction) should always be to not change.
7584102? ago
Can you please kick hecho out now?
7586308? ago
nope. i havent posted pedo pics in over 6 months. want a reason to get rid of me, well you dont have it anymore, and thats too bad. lmao
7586455? ago
You broke the rules then too you just havnt been pushed for it.
7586494? ago
doesnt matter now. i still wont be banned.
7584173? ago
Perhaps preventing him from posting that content in the future but retroactively punishing him for a rule change is wrong.
7584207? ago
The rule has been in the user agreement as long as I have been here. Atko and Puttitout just haven't done anything about it.
7584265? ago
A more clear definition in what they classify as doxingood and is exceptions would be nice.
Why allow other users access to comment history of you can't use the information contained there in.
7584845? ago
Because then people begin to witchhunt like you are right now. if you want to do something about pedophiles I know a pizza parlor in DC where you can find a bunch of em.
7585138? ago
What makes you think I want to have a witch hunt? I can't even stand pizzagate, blocked it long ago.
My argument is of you post it in public view it should be fair game, should it not
7585299? ago
Agreed. Any information posted voluntarily should not be considered as doxing. If it can be found in comment history it should be fair game.
7587858? ago
If we are compartmentalizing things why do you get to access anybody's comment history at all? keep to your own affairs and I'll keep to mine
7584131? ago
A lot of us are hoping for that. The little faggot is doing his best to normalize his deviance. We can't give him any wiggle room.
7586463? ago
its legal. get over it.
7584099? ago
Nude images of minors is a grey area, porn is illegal.
7588297? ago
Cartoon/CGI and fictional stories are fine.
7586665? ago
Exactly. Take into account nude beaches and nudist colonies. Families go there together and family photos are taken. There are sometimes naked children in the photos just like everyone else in the photo is naked. This is not pornography because the focus of the photo is not explicitly on the private areas of the child. This is also why nudist colonies go to great lengths to know who tries to become a member before being allowed inside. If photos at a nudist colony were cp they wouldn't be listed on search engines.
7602449? ago
And they're fucking degenerates too.
7619611? ago
moral authoritarianism is more degenerate than virtually every activity. it is desperately clinging to regression and belief structures that were outdated over a thousand years ago.
7607160? ago
You personally disagree so they all must be wrong right? Pitiful. What a simple little thing you are.
7608097? ago
And you can't win, so you resort to name calling.
I'll count that as 1 to me, pedos nil.
7616543? ago
Sorry snowflake the law is clear and you're wrong. Did you get your little feelings hurt? Do you need a safe space and a pacifier to suck on? Lol.
7585325? ago
Nude images of minors is not porn or illegal. Nude images of minors engaged in a sexually explicit situation IS illegal. A pic of your nudist family at a nudist beach is not porn. A pic of... I'm not going there. You get the idea.
I personally do not condone of either. Just pointing out the law.
7588827? ago
You're pointing out the law in your country. Mine is much more strict.
I don't wanna get v& just because your country's laws allow degeneracy.
7591066? ago
Women showing their faces in public is degeneracy to some. Your word has no standard and you should really pick a new one.
7593553? ago
H-hecho?
7589452? ago
Voat is a US company and goes by US law. If you want something else, make your own voat or buy this one.
7588886? ago
Well, should we tailor to all countries? Some countries, photos of women who don't wear burkas are considered pornography, and punishable by law.
Should we ban all subverses which host images which could be illegal in any country? What about images against Kim Jung Un -- those are illegal in North Korea. What about cartoons of Muhammad -- those are illegal in many middle-eastern states.
If we start banning things because you aren't responsible enough to block the content yourself, we will end up banning everything.
7593570? ago
I do have all NSFW subverses blocked, so I have taken steps.
But surely we can all agree that pictures of naked kids is just wrong? Just like we all agree that rape and murder is wrong? Do we really not have a common base morality we can all agree on?
You can't be a little bit pedo, you know. It's binary.
7595222? ago
Oh, I agree that the images are wrong. I don't like what these subverse contain, But I also recognize banning them, based on their fully-legal content, is just as wrong.
7602397? ago
“Right and Wrong is a very different standard from Legal and Illegal”
-- Ed Snowden
7603111? ago
Exactly what I'm saying. Just because you don't like their content, or what they stand for, or what they're about, doesn't mean they're doing anything illegal.
And to even insinuate that it's a good idea to ban them because of those first three points, ignoring the fourth/last point, is not only scary dangerous... It's wrong.
7603165? ago
You might not think it, but I'm pro free speech too.
I don't see how posting pictures of naked kids is a question of speech though. I think there is an order when it comes to morality - murder is worse than shoplifting for example. Framed in this way, I think that pedos posting pictures of kids is worse than stopping them.
7619584? ago
supporting policing of thought crime is actually worse than murder. now consider what you are doing.
7605690? ago
The problem is that there are no kids in this topic of discussion... Only drawings.
Is a drawing of a murder worse than actual shoplifting?
7585211? ago
And from the sunshine cometh a GreyCloud
7584705? ago
Nude images of minors are a "gray area" in parts of Europe, until Sharia fully takes over, but nude pictures of minors in the United States are illegal.
7586745? ago
Great point. Unless you want to spin off different versions of Voat for different countries, Voat has to adhere to the strictest standard or risk being banned.
7587181? ago
Actaully that's the oposite of a good idea. I guess we should comply with NK, China, Australia, UK, and India that have porn bans or something just short of it. We should also censor everything to comply with Japan.
The beauty of the internet is you comply with one areas rules and tell everyone else to suck it. To do otherwise would be madness. It's not how the internet works. Single country compliance is how the internet works so why would Voat of all places censor more than what the rest of the internet does? That would be antithetical to what voat is. Apply the minimum of the law or anything else you are complicit with censorship.
Find a locality where Voat exists and follow only those rules. International compliance is bullshit.
By the way /v/niggers wouldn't be internationally compliant.
7586051? ago
Nobody gives a shit about you fucking eurofags. keep your pedo shit out of here.
7586602? ago
nobody gives a shit about you whitey fags, keep your nigger shit out of here. nobody gives a shit about you fatophobes, keep your hate out of here. nobody cares about you antisemites, keep your racism out of here!
if nobody cares or gives a shit, than everything should be allowed so long as it is legal. don't like some sub? there is a block button for a reason.
7587152? ago
Found the eurofag pedo. That's what the rules are giving you. A situation where nobody gives a shit, except where it's illegal. Guess what? Civilised countries don't want you fucking pedos.
7587543? ago
just cus your fattass is the size of a small country doesn't mean you actually represent countries.
7585405? ago
lies, pretty baby the movie is quite legal in the US. nudity is legal, nudity in lascivious poses or that is centered on the genitals is illegal in the US. lascivious poses are illegal regardless of clothing, and images centered on the genitals when the clothing is sheer is also illegal.
that is beside the point. legal pictures should be allowed. i am fine with no nudity, but even facebook allowed the napalm girl in vietnam to be posted after the public backlash, even when she is clearly nude.
7586485? ago
Yeah, pretty sure admins aren't talking about your typical nudes. Napalm girl is a good example.
7602467? ago
Napalm girl is so naked they stripped her skin off, too.
7586790? ago
It must simultaneously suck, and be awesome to be known as "Napalm Girl".
7584785? ago
No they are not. There are many nudist website with such pics.
7585441? ago
And 'such pics' are illegal.Just because they exist does not make them legal. Is it legal to live nude in a nudist colony? Sure.Is it legal to post photos of nude minors anywhere? No. No it is not.7586871? ago
No they're not illegal. Family photos at a nudist colony where children are present are not illegal. As long as the focus of the photo is clearly NOT on the private areas of a child it's OK. I think all of the major search engines would be removing their nudist colony links if it were illegal don't you?
7585742? ago
Actually it is as long as it is not lewd or lascivious. There are mainstream movies that depict nude children. The original Superman comes to mind. There is a scene where the 3 year old boy comes out of the pod after it lands and he is totally nude, full frontal. It was show in theaters and on broadcast TV.
7586024? ago
Hmm... well maybe I just wish it weren't legal, but I guess the Nirvana album cover proves it is...
7586303? ago
Why do you want this to be illegal, what's your problem with nudity? I never understood why americunts hate nudity, either.
7587000? ago
voat is loaded with the americunts that hate nudity just like they hate all sexuality. they preach not to watch porn, they consider it to be a "health hazard" now. they have a movement of abstaining from masturbation called "no fap". there are tons of people opposed to prostitution. the only way they could get more uptight about sex is if they were damned muslims. they are sexually repressed as hell, which is why the churches are filled with so many child molesters.
they be like, "don't post that pic it is immoral", meanwhile they are fucking their neighbor's kid.
7586766? ago
The morals in the US are fucked up. Nudity is bad but violence is perfectly fine.
7586894? ago
That is something I never understood about American film/television. Nudity/sexuality is barely acceptable, but ultra violence is perfectly acceptable. What the fuck is up with that? You'd think it'd be the other way around, if anything.
7586674? ago
Good question. I don't know. I guess because I know, somewhere out there, there's a creep who's into that
7587144? ago
Somewhere out there, there's a creep that is sexually attracted to virtually anything you can think of. It's someones fetish, no exceptions. No reason to ban everything, though. Or do you want to ban that pony show people where into a few years back, too? http://uploads.ungrounded.net/alternate/735000/735840_alternate_7832.720p.mp4 (NSFL)
7585437? ago
7584561? ago
It is still sexualizing children which should not be aloud in any shape or form. If any general area of the genitals are shown it should be banned.
7587987? ago
Uhhh... sexualization is done in the mind. If you feel it should be banned because it's sexual... then I have news for you.
7586702? ago
Photos at a nude beach or nudist colony is not sexualizing children. Families take family photos there all the time.
7585986? ago
Sexualizing sure, but posting a picture of my daughter in a Halloween outfit isn't. Seems unfair to ban posting pictures of kids entirely, but there's certainly something that needs defined there.
7591043? ago
No nude minors. If you must take it one step farther then say no minors in underwear. However, sometimes underwear is hard to distinguish between a bikini.
Edit: Drawings of sexualized minors is legal in most of the US. Thus, it should be allowed on Voat.
7584623? ago
Yes, I would agree, at least as far as VOAT is concerned.
7584482? ago
@PUTTITOUT AND @ATKO
ON DOXXES: ATKO HAS SAID THAT DOXING A USER BY PUTTINGTHE INFO ON VOAT IS DELETABLE AND BANNABLE, BUT HAS STATED THAT LINKING TO A DOX OFF OF VOAT (IE THE DOXXING INFO IS NOT ON VOAT SERVERS, JUST A LINK) THEN THAT'S OK.*** WHAT IS THE PROPOSED OFFICIAL RULE REGARDING THIS ATKO STATED DIFFERENCE
ATKO QUOTE SOURCE...
-SANEGOAT (people's feedback clearly states they want more cowbell.. i mean, capslocks)
7585110? ago
No doxxing of voat usernames on or off site?
7584839? ago
Good point, Sane. This adds complexity to the issue and should be clearly defined.
-heygeorge
7584633? ago
What's your point?
7584312? ago
Why would any1 want to watch kids kissing kids ?
v/kidskissingkids
7586495? ago
Link is staying blue.
7584569? ago
aaaaaaakward. A) why is it there B) how did you know it was there
7585104? ago
It's weird as fuck, and absolutely creepy, but if you consistently browse /all/new you're going to see Hecho-tier shit eventually.
7584967? ago
People keep bringing it up in comments. I'm amazed you have not seen it.
7584630? ago
v/kkk
first and only comment
7584516? ago
Who knows, but I don't think that's inherently pornographic, that's something kids do. I remember when I was in elementary school, there was this one girl who really tried to kiss me all the time because she liked me. I, of course, wanted no part of it, because I had shit to do, and pokemon to catch, but kids sometimes kiss kids. I wouldn't want to watch it, but let's not pretend kissing is always lewd or sexual in nature.
7587214? ago
We need more reasonable people, like this guy.
7584738? ago
people are strange indeed
7584432? ago
I have no idea.
7584442? ago
found it in v/kkk
7584094? ago
Yes to all.
I wonder if as a back up there could be a small group of voaters willing to be vetted by the admins to take over subs during times when a moderator purge is going on. Like handing over a sub to two or three vetted mods for a week or so until a vote on what trusted member of the sub gets elected as a new mod. I would be willing to do this if something like that were to take place. Like a crisis team of temporary mods with no dog in the fight to watch over the sub until the storm has passed.
7584088? ago
So does that mean Hecho is going away? He clearly posts sexualized content containing minors.
7586092? ago
i havent posted pedo pics since june, so no.
7588249? ago
The worse is that I have no idea if it's him or not.
7586687? ago
hahaha people thinking i am you is nipping you in the butt. sorry about that, i can't control the fact that they are idiots.
7584594? ago
Looks like he and his shadow found your comment.
7585475? ago
Shadows? Oh sorry, but he's not the only one here who sees the hypocrisy.
7588029? ago
You got downvoted because a person who believes in free speech without 'feelz' shouldn't exist according to these geniuses.
7584611? ago
Nah, he has 3 alts. I always have 4 downvoats right away when I kindly tell him to kill himself.
7588019? ago
I'm pretty sure I'm not him but I know you guys are detrimental to free speech already. So here, have a downvote. You earned it.
7595610? ago
okay when he freely states that he wants to fuck children, I will freely tell him to kill himself before he hurts anyone.
7603364? ago
Hurting people is no good, that's why if there's someone who is a child rapist, well... they're a fucking piece of shit. I agree with this.
I do not however agree with someone trying to inhibit the rights of another person who has not hurt anyone and has no intention of doing so.
7588234? ago
All speech isn't free speech. Hecho seeks to normalize his deviance. I'm not going to tolerate it. I could give 2 shits if you downvoat me. It could also be argued that you are detrimental to our free speech. I'm not one in control. I'm just speaking my peace.
7586198? ago
nope. you probably get downvoted to hell because your childish 'kill yourself' comment doesnt add to any discussion. the fact that youre still so pissed off about me posting pedo pics 6+ months ago is funny as fuck though.
7588246? ago
Cool. A blocked user is also blocked when posting anonymously. Easy to identify your pedophile ass. Kill yourself.
7588469? ago
lol. you have me blocked? little bitch. get a job.
7584714? ago
I propose inciting suicide should deserve a ban too, it is illegal in many countries as well.
7585077? ago
kill yourself, faggot
7584752? ago
Then I'll be banned. So long as Hecho is on the site, I'll keep encouraging him to do the world a favor.
7586652? ago
you do that shit to me too, and you know what? i fully support your right to do so. women not wearing head coverings is illegal in many countries as well. i don't like those countries except when it comes to their marriage customs. we live in a land where the first amendment is free speech, which is intentionally supposed to protect unpopular speech.
7584797? ago
Banned or in jail. As i said, it is illegal in many countries to incite suicide. Don't think you are better than him, he is born that way and so far there are no proofs he ever hurt anyone, instead you are actively choosing to hurt someone.
7585490? ago
Born that way. Fuck off. Even if that were true, he doesn't need to try to normalize his behavior. It's apparently worked on you.
7585677? ago
Yes, born that way. Reality does not give a shit about your opinion on the issue, sorry for that.
7584636? ago
He's growing stronger... I hope he spends the rest of his days logging in and out of various accounts until he forgets who he is.
7584660? ago
I know greycloud is one alt. He's replied from it by accident in the past. I imagine he has multiple tabs open with his alts. Easy mistake for a retarded like him to make.
7586230? ago
haha. he actually isnt my alt.
he was probably joking around, gullible moron.
7586624? ago
not joking. i simply give idiots a way to stay idiots. if i see an easy troll, i take it.
7584539? ago
For people who constantly say leftist are kiddydiddlers and muslims are pedophiles I find it amusing that they don't care about the pedo posting pic of kids he lives with. The rule about sexulized content of minors have been in the user agreement for as long as I've been here. I've pointed out that hecho is breaking the rule and I got downvoted. I pm'd Atko about it and he never did anything nor replied to it.
It's about time to rid this site from Hecho and people like him.
7586519? ago
Just post granny porn on his subs like I used to. - mamwad
7586233? ago
Free speech - it only matters when its something you like.
7590990? ago
CP (or borderline) is not the hill I want free speech to die on. We could lose what we do have because of it. That's the goal of a lot of people argueing to keep everything. I get your point but we have a hard enough time defending actual speech here without defending a legal quagmire.
To the people that are so steadfast about voat keeping everything up to a very hazy legal line. I'd dare them to go make a jailbait website if that's a fight they're so interested in. Let me know how that works out.
I just don't think this should be voat's war to fight. And I really doubt the sincerity of people who say it's about free speech.
7593420? ago
I'm a little surprised to encounter someone willing to discuss the topic rationally. This place is an echo chamber, and anyone who tries to tell you that it isn't is a liar. For the most part the people in it like to pretend they're different from Reddit and other boards that succumb to hive mentality, but it isn't. Any time a person subscribes to a notion that violates the hive mentality they are censored with CCP.
Some would argue that this is not censorship because the comment still exists on the site and is not deleted but I disagree. Comments with low scores aren't expanded. They're pushed lower down the list. They are far less likely to be read. Negative CCP is a form of censorship, and negative CCP is in and of itself is ultimately a method of saying "I don't like what you have to say so I'm going to punish you by making sure people don't see what you have to say". If Voat were truly about speech freedom there would be no voting systems at all. All comments would have exactly the same value in the eyes of the system regardless of their contents and regardless about how you, I or anyone else felt about them.
In a very real sense we're not talking about how to preserve speech freedom because that has never really existed here in the first place. We're talking about whether or not there should be hard censoring of some things while everything else is subjected to soft censoring based on popular opinion.
There have to be some limits to things, and limits mean censors. But the argument is always what are those limits? Who decides what those limits are? When is a limit going too far? These are valid questions with answers that are more often than not subjective. I don't think you'll ever arrive at an answer which is universally accepted. Society and it's rules surrounding social grace however are not based on universal acceptance; they're based on what the majority find acceptable. Ignoring social grace is OK for Voat if all you want is to manufacture a subset society that is comprised of only the fringe. If you want more you have to compromise.
We need to consider whether or not the site can survive subscribing to certain notions. Rebelling against all of societies' norms is not only idealistic and brave, but also self-destructive. Even if the creators do not personally subscribe to those beliefs that society deems unacceptable, it poisons the site. I don't believe this place can become financially viable without at least some concessions made in the interests of being socially decent. This doesn't mean all ideas have to be filtered, but there are some topics which are so morally disgusting that a majority of society would see it as an affront. This can and will hold Voat back. In my opinion Reddit took filtering way too far, but Voat isn't taking it far enough. Both in their present condition are extremes. I think what we need is somewhere in the middle if the goal is to keep the site alive and growing.
Free speech at its core is about the ability to criticize without fear of legal repercussion. It was designed specifically so that we could be critical of our government without fear of our government hurting us and has the fringe benefit of letting us express ourselves on other topics. What it isn't, is a license to be given access to any and every platform from which to express your ideas. People need to stop conflating the idea of free speech with the idea of a free platform. They are two entirely different things.
7584087? ago
Third
7584071? ago
I don't think the doxxing is that bad of its just derived from information they post. Really you're not supposed to share personal identifying info, so if ithey shared it with voat before they are obviously fine with it being posted.
7585083? ago
Someone making thousands of posts, will slip up. Dont doxx other voaters.
7585193? ago
Well actually is over a thousand but if you include commets its thousands
7585181? ago
It is the price you must pay then to do thousands, I've submitted thousands and I'll go in and clean house on anything I see that really had any personal info after.
Sure it's a slight risk but if you where that paranoid you shouldn't even post in the first place.
7585201? ago
Stuff lefties and other boring people say.
7584836? ago
I don't think that's fair if the social media profile itself isn't publicly searchable to begin with. You might know someone's Facebook even though it isn't indexed by search engines, but you can make their profile essentially public by posting their URL and info, since that can then get picked up by Google, etc.
7585105? ago
That dose make a good point
7584067? ago
For bullet #2: If someone does change a subverse without the proper chain of command should result in a ban or at the least a retraction of their moderator status.
7584062? ago
Rules look good. I really like the community policy. Looking forward to seeing the tools used to vote on subverse policies.
Thank you for the hard work. The admins are greatly appreciated.
7584050? ago
Sexualized Content of Minors *
Should only concern real people, not drawings. Maybe common sense, maybe not.
7588379? ago
Please! There's so little places for these communities now :c
7585228? ago
that's not common sense, that's what pervs say to circumvent common sense. get that shit out.
7585515? ago
Go back to Reddit, then. Goats do not need safe spaces to protect them from things they dislike. At least that was my impression of Voat.
7588761? ago
way to miss the point, dipshit. You choosing to sidestep laws that protect society at large has nothing to do with me and my "safe space", it has everything to do with creating unsafe spaces for children who can't do anything about it.
7597467? ago
Making drawings and writing stories are not things that hurt children. In the same sense that making a movie about killing people doesn't harm anyone.
7598968? ago
Feeds a fantasy and builds on it
7599746? ago
Actually, for many people it safely quells and satisfies a fantasy so it won't get out of control. Much like how masturbating clears the mind of sexual desire, and if you don't masturbate, sexual desire increases.
7602231? ago
And for many it gives them ideas.
7588801? ago
are you implying that voat is a children's site?
7589054? ago
no. I'm implying that a person who posts cartoon CP is no more welcome around my kids that someone who posts actual CP
7599736? ago
Then don't let your kids on Voat. There's plenty of other reasons they shouldn't be here, too.
7589171? ago
well any good parent would be watching out for their kids anyway. i promote all types of things that people hate, but i have always defended and promoted a parents right and responsibility to look out for their children.
its one thing to protect your children. its another thing entirely to demand that everyone else follow the same sets of beliefs that you hold. it is honorable to protect your children, it is very dishonorable and shitty to tell other people that they must view child nudity, or "sexualization" as a bad thing.
7586848? ago
Then you got the wrong impression.
7584428? ago
Most of those "sensitive" rules are designed to keep admins' arses safe, not to be sensible. If drawn/rendered cp is illegal in state Voat got registered in, or in US in general, it will be prohibited on the site, no matter what weebs - and we all fucking know it's them that complain the loudest about drawn cp being treated "unfairly" - shout.
7586763? ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
drawn/rendered cp is legal in the US in general. sometimes it may be prosecuted under local obscenity laws but in general those are getting shut down. it is de facto legal, and has been through the supreme court.
7584223? ago
no /v/rfh and cartoons depicting sex with children should go.
7588035? ago
Who gave you that right?
7588394? ago
What right?
7587256? ago
Let's start drawing up what should go.
Hey, /v/niggers should go.
7588771? ago
v/pizzagate should go, so should v/occidentalenclave
7587361? ago
Yeah man, and /v/fatpeoplehate
7587688? ago
Fatpeoplehate are the biggest censors on voat
7586550? ago
Just block it, like I did. Loli is clearly and unambiguously legal.
7584556? ago
Agreed. I am tired of that shit.
7584085? ago
There are apperntly legal restrictions in some areas like Utah which make them legal count as the same thing.
7584224? ago
In some places the law is written in a way that makes no distinction, probably because no one has drawings in mind when writing this, but as far as I know this gets rectified whenever challenged.
7584392? ago
In some places, pictures of women wearing a bikini is illegal. If she's not pictured wearing a burka, it's illegal.
Should we ban all subverses that fall within this "grey area?"
7584889? ago
False comparison. No more sexualized children, in any form. The end.
7585407? ago
People seem to have a problem with understanding this simple thing and keep bringing up slippery slope.
7585453? ago
We're talking about banning drawings. That's a fucking thought crime.
7586644? ago
Were talking about sexualized images of children. I don't care if it's fucking ASCII art, I want it fucking eradicated. If you want to see depictions of children being sexualized, you need to tell a doctor, because it can be relater to OCD, and it can be cured. Interest in sexualized children is a mental illness, and we don't edify that.
7586780? ago
i want people like you eradicated. how do we rectify our difference of opinion?
7587653? ago
Pretty simple. One is violating another human being, and skating at the edge of violating a human being. Dreaming of violating a human being, fantasizing, longing, masturbating, all to a fantasy of violation. That person is our issue, as a society, and needs to be addressed. And as I mentioned, there is medical treatment that can alleviate the symptoms in some cases. Get help, goddamn you.
7592882? ago
Pray the gay away.
7592905? ago
That's not medical treatment, that's retards with a superstition.
7588042? ago
i agree that one is violating another human being while the other is violating cartoons. i didn't realize that you masturbated over your fantasies of hurting pedos. you are more sadistic than i gave you credit for. you are right, you probably should get help.
7588109? ago
I have no interest in hurting them, I said GET HELP. I didn't say fall into a pit and die slow. You have a mental illness, and it's possible it could be cured. Have you pursued every avenue to this end, or are you looking to be coddled and applauded? Cause we don't do that here for the mentally ill, (of which I am one). Swallow your pride. Stop justifying, stop making excuses. Get fucking help. Stop skating around with gateway bullshit, because it WILL escalate, and it will steal a great deal of YOUR life, whether or not you act it out.
I love you, asshole.
7588222? ago
thanks for caring. i have spent a great deal of time looking into what could and could not be done about it. and there is no cure (other than death). what i can do about it is utilize legal outlets so that i don't get overly sexually frustrated and hurt somebody. what i can do about it is advocate for legal changes that allow for those who have the ability to understand to be able to consent. yes i agree that most young people are ignorant and can't understand and therefore can't give INFORMED CONSENT (the kind that i am concerned about, as well as legal consent which is the kind most people get stuck on as if there aren't more than one form of consent).
for those with the ability to make informed decisions, it is the law and society that is wrong. i can understand why, most humans have a biological imperative to protect children (with the exception of the 4% of sociopaths and psychopaths). i am not a psychopath or sociopath. i have no intent of hurting anyone nor doing anything illegal. i do believe that the laws should be changed to better address ability to make informed decisions. age is not as good of an indicator as IQ is.
7588354? ago
Have you done any CBT? or DBT? I've heard claims that they are literally rewiring the neural pathways in the brains of people with everything from PTSD to MDD to OCD. It does seem a little bit 'Clockwork Orange' from the outside, but to check it out might be worth the time - of course the mental health care in most places is shit, but if you live near a metropolitan area, they will have the equipment and the trained professionals. Have you been tried on Orap? I think the proper name is Pimozide? It's crazy, but one pill, or pill combination, will just do nothing at all, and another can make big changes. It's frustrating and obnoxious, but again, worth it for a shot at normalcy.
It's important to discover from what your thoughts and feelings stem, it can help a professional figure out a treatment plan - if you're in the boonies, they probably aren't going to be able to help, and I understand not being willing to climb into the asshole of an asinine system that has nothing for you. And I'm so goddamn sorry you're deal with this. This fucking life, eh? :/ hugs
7588458? ago
yes i have done CBT. i was sexually abused as a teenager. i was the age of the girls that i am most attracted to now (and have been for a very long time). it seems that my sexual attraction has stayed frozen to that time frame in life that you have long outgrown. i was coerced, but at that time was able to understand and consent. i had no good choices, so i acquiesced. i very much understand the difference of coercion and don't condone it. i very much understand the ability to make informed decisions yet be held back from doing so. i promote autonomy.
7584030? ago
Keep the status quo and stop screwing with a good thing.
7584313? ago
the sites in beta you dumbass it was never intended that it would simply remain the same
7584394? ago
It is real simple...
If it's not broke, don't fuck with it.
7584709? ago
it's not broke but it's not finished
7584139? ago
something people should be wary of is kneejerk responses to events. What can happen is that people may intentionally cause drama and chaos in order to instigate rule changes or simply cause general disarray in voat and subverses.
7584175? ago
@atko
Stop fucking with a good thing.
@Puttitout
Don't screw with the status quo
7584020? ago
Yes to all.
7584013? ago
Based admins
Anyway, I'd like to hear the voat community on spammers. People who make literally thousands of accounts and flood out a subverse with the same post. It's getting old and it's not fair to anyone who uses a single account.
Not saying that this should be a site wide rule, but I would like to see individual subverses adopt a clause against this type of shit posting
7584872? ago
Yeah, fuck that /u/Voatisforniggers retard. 0 value spamming idiot.
7590347? ago
I considered him a joke account. Needs tweaking though.
7584111? ago
@Cynabuns has been pushing for a more clearly defined policy on this and I agree, something needs to be done.
7589060? ago
Allow users to block others instead of waiting for the janitors to wake up. That way each user can define their own spam.
7589559? ago
That seems like a horrible idea it could be abused soo easily.
Like give it to a select few whove been here a while and are like pillars of the community. That would be a great work around
7598996? ago
Allowing individuals to block someone wont amount to any abuse because it will only block the person for them not anyone else.
7588697? ago
You mean @She.
7602263? ago
she is a she, but she can't be She, because I am @She
7602594? ago
Fuck off, @Cynabuns.
7593838? ago
Why is everybody @She?
Honestly the real one probably an hero'd after her nudes were leaked. She kept saying if her BF knew he would actually kill her too.
7589534? ago
Really? Thanks for letting me know
7585709? ago
Spamming is pretty well defined. Spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send an unsolicited message, especially advertising, as well as sending messages repeatedly on the same site . Seems you guys are only worried about the advertising portion though, suffering the repeated messages my self I would like to have them deleted to unclog threads if nothing else.
7588955? ago
No one mentions that but its unwanted by most of the userbase but these people still get 10 posts per day and just log into another account. They are circumventing site restrictions and being brazen about it by making accounts with numerical additions.
7589065? ago
Never saw a rule about multi accounts, but I have seen users spamming with the same account, usually to harass a couple users for daring to oppose them. I have seen what you are talking about too, spamming with multiple accounts. I don't find the multiple accounts a bad thing just the rampant spamming that some of them do.
7589207? ago
Let users fully block others. Problem solved on all fronts. Then all the admins need to worry about is whats purely legal or not legal and appoint janitors to remove that for them sitewide. The janitor fucks up once he is gone.
7589252? ago
I disagree with the whole block user option on principle. Some users can be spamming assholes half the time and still produce quality content the other half. If I block them for being a spamming asshole then I lose the quality content they produce.
7589748? ago
Then don't use that feature and let others worry about what they miss out on. Unless you are more concerned with what you want others to see or not see, it shouldn't bother you as long as you can see it.
If a bot is spamming incoherent ad spam for hours on end would you see any value in that? With a block feature YOU would get to choose and maybe everyone can be happier.
7589806? ago
You are tangenting so hard off of my original post to the point where you are making assumptions and spewing idiocy.
7589842? ago
That was my first reply in this comment chain. I'm not the guy you replied to previously.
7589996? ago
My apologies its hard to keep up with a anon thread. I don't want anything but spam to be recognized as spam. I don't want to self censor with the shitty block button and I don't want assholes to keep spamming. As it is now only advertising is considered spam. Repeated messages need to be considered spam and should be allowed to be deleted by janitors. Nothing else. No funky agenda to silence any one or any crazy shit like that.
7590169? ago
Its all good I just latched onto the idea there.
7585394? ago
I think a report button that includes reason spam/CP/dox and automatically hides the content for review would work. If the review finds the content to be OK, then escalating bans of the reporting account.
Apply a minimum CCP rule so it can't just be constant new accounts reporting things.
7587497? ago
Maybe have it hidden automatically after a certain amount of reports, as to not stifle content.
7585964? ago
So what happens if I decide to brigade a user (I'm looking at you, /v/ProtectVoat) and have ample CCP to do so. I go report a user's posts, he's effectively censored on the site.
7588568? ago
This is what sjw''s do apparently
7586098? ago
And you'd end up banned for abusing it, as noted in proposing it.