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.
view the rest of the comments →
7584088? ago
So does that mean Hecho is going away? He clearly posts sexualized content containing minors.
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.