Voat is currently getting hit with a huge amount of traffic as a direct result of recent changes happening over at that other place.
Everyone, we’re sorry. We’re both sad to see what we once loved change in this manner, but we’re also excited about the future, but our future won't be traveling down this same path.
We won’t be getting any sleep tonight (again) and we are doing everything we can to handle the traffic.
Our budget is limited but we’ll make sure to fight to the last penny in order to keep Voat alive for this community. If you want to donate, well, now is the time. Our bitcoin address is 1C4Q1RvUb3bzk4aaLVgGccnSnaHYFdESzY.
edit: added a few line breaks
view the rest of the comments →
RustySpitoonBouncer ago
BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES
abpples ago
Voat's new censorship
Downvoating is what reddit uses to silence dissenting views.
People don't typically upvoat, even if they like something. They will just look at it.
But when people get butthurt or see things they don't like they DO DOWNVOAT. You're assuming that people use both buttons the same way.
Voating is a censorship tool because it doesn't depend on rational argumentation. It only depends on CONSENSUS. That's why SRS use downvoat brigades because they know it's only purpose is to censor content they don't want seen by others.
Look, our entire political system should make it more practical. We don't let everyone vote in elections for a good reason: we know that retards are the majority of people. You want Bill Gate's educated vote negated by some homeless retard on the street? That's EXACTLY what democratic voting does. That's exactly what the movie Idiocracy was about. When you give everyone an equal say, you negate the point of education. You negate the point of rational argumentation. If a baby can negate the vote of an adult, then you don't really need to learn how to think. All you need to do is make people agree with you. And bribery is the fastest way to agreement.
Since people tend to downvoat when they're butthurt and engaged in censorship, the best way to combat censorship would be to only allow UPVOATING since people will actively have to champion what they believe rather than focus on what they want to complain about and censor. You can look at upvoating as positive censorship since it at least puts the burden on the upvoater to be accountable to their views and say what they prefer instead of simply complaining about what they don't want.
Stating what you want to happen takes EDUCATION AND EFFORT. Complaining about what you don't want just requires the ability to be butthurt.
I'd rather err on the side of positive censorship if we have to censor at all. We already know how negative censorship turns out: it becomes reddit.
At least positive censorship requires EFFORT that keyboard warriors aren't willing to invest. So if we want to make this place different from reddit, we should ONLY have an upvoat button.
And while we're at it, let's remove the scores from the profiles so keyboard warriors who are already socially retarded don't start jerking off to their fake internet power.
Tjoflojt ago
I can hardly begin to tell you how wrong you are - of course Bill Gates' vote should weigh as heavily as the homeless persons; no more, no less. That's the point of democracy. When you let an "educated" elite decide what's best for everybody, they do what's best for themselves, and fuck the rest.
Regarding voating, regardless of whether or not you allow downvoating, the dumb masses are going to decide who gets the most visibility. Countless sites without downvoting have shown that this just leads to the most popular contributors getting ahead, regardless of the quality of their submissions.
abpples ago
This is why I love debate cowardly faggot keyboard warriors like you who are soooooo brave and righteous behind your mommy's keyboards, but not so smart in person when the other party can answer back.
Zevudus ago
Plot twist: /u/apbbles is actually the cowardly faggot keyboard warrior who is soooooo brave and righteous behind his mommy's keyboard, but not so smart in person when the other party can answer back.