I have made a decision to alter and/or remove various restrictions on Voat. I’ve thought a lot about this and it’s something both @Atko and I believe needs to be reevaluated.
Voat has always had a problem with spam. @Amalek would spam posts and hijack the new queue making it unusable. MH101 and then later @SaneGoatiSwear would hijack comment pages making them unusable. The rules Voat uses were put in place in to combat this behavior. They are old rules, mostly remaining unchanged from the initial versions of this site. Most, if not all, of the rules were in direct response to spam attacks. It was never Voat’s intention to limit non-spam accounts, but this is what has happened as an indirect result of these rules.
Voat will not keep in place a system that permanently limits a segment of users from debating and conversing. This isn’t Free Speech as I see it or as I want it.
Voat will shortly be going live with a new code base, and I want to have a new system designed and ready for when this happens, so I am posting this announcement to get feedback from the community.
The main areas of concern:
- Commenting restrictions on negative CCP accounts that aren't spamming their comments
- Limiting any account that spam comments
TL;DR
We need to allow unpopular opinions while preventing comment spam.
How do we do it?
All options are on the table
https://voat.co/v/announcements/1330806
view the rest of the comments →
smallpond ago
At the moment all CCP restrictions do to prevent spam is stop comment/post flooding by unpopular users. The sensible alternative is to make rules that directly prevent flooding. You can look through the data and see the frequency distribution of users' daily posts/comments - this is a good reference point. (At the moment low-CCP users are limited based on a 24-hour window, I think moving to a 48 hour window would be less of an inconvenience for genuine users - what follows doesn't depend on the window chosen.) Take for example the 98th (or xth) percentile relative to the frequency distribution above and set this as a global comment/post limit for all established users regardless of CCP score. Nobody can comment/post more than this within the chosen 24/48 hour time period. Apart from this fixed limit, let users post/comment without captchas until they get to say 80% (of whatever you want) of the maximum, introduce captchas for posts/comments from 80-95% of the maximum, double the necessary captchas for 95-100% of the maximum. This should kill flooding by individual accounts while only inconveniencing a few genuine users. Users who regularly hit 100% of their limits despite the apparent inconvenience of captchas would be red flags for administrators to investigate further.
I also consider the ability to upvote/downvote as an important aspect of free-speech, and think they should also be subject to universal limits for established users similar to the above.
In my opinion, discriminating against users who are not 'established' on voat is not an infringement of free speech so long as becoming 'established' has nothing to do with the popularity of users' ideas. Clearly CCP is a terrible measure of a user's patronage or sincerity. I suggest a new measure whereby a user becomes established when they have accrued 50 (or whatever) days when they logged in, voted on something, and commented/posted at least once. This may be overly harsh towards lurkers, so perhaps just logging in and voting is enough, though this has greater 'security' risks for voat regarding establishing the reputation of a user and guarding against some manner of hostile takeover by newbies. I also think such an establishment score should be degraded steadily if a user is inactive for more than two weeks (or whatever). This acts as a measure against sleeper accounts. Something like 25% (or whatever) of established users' commenting/posting/voting limits for newbies might be appropriate.
I don't view the ordering of content via up/downvotes or the mere act of reporting a CCP score as real impediments to free speech, especially when we have the option to order from the 'bottom' as well as the top. This type of user control of how they view content could be expanded: firstly by giving a 'Bottom' ordering for posts that complements 'Top' by swapping the role of up and downvotes. Various 'Middle' type orderings could also be introduced for comments and posts.
I am against increasing moderator powers - most people accept that this path is easily subject to subversion. The ideal is to have the site owners/PuttItOut doing the vast majority of moderation algorithmically.
When it comes to preventing intelligent subversion, CCP restrictions are useless. People or organizations are free to open as many accounts as they like, and many smart professional operators who wish to steer apparent opinions on voat are not dumb enough to draw attention to themselves by posting commenting too frequently from single accounts. CCP restrictions are also easily gamed by saying whatever voat wants to hear, posing no impediment all even to isolated individuals whose goal is subversion. I cannot think of any way at all to counter professional subversion while preserving user anonymity. I see this as an unsolvable problem unrelated to voat upholding free speech for its users.
The exact details of spam rules may reasonably be subject to secrecy. However, I think CCP-restrictions have little to do with spam, and are instead related to free-speech. Whatever rules you decide on regarding user-limits on commenting/posting/voting should be made painfully obvious to all new users, preferably before they open an account.
Crensch ago
This "user" posts a disclaimer at the bottom of almost EVERY comment he makes whining about downvoats.
I'm almost certain that if he was a legitimate user, and stopped doing that, he would have positive CCP.
He's just another one of a long line of trolls/shills that are case studies for the rest of us about why the comment restriction is a good idea.
MadWorld ago
Now I remember that fucking irritating disclaimer on almost every comment he made while whining about that "censorship" crap over and over again.
Tor1 ago
Smallpond isn't here to merely voice opinions. He is here to disrupt and even shut down Voat if possible. He is an enemy of free speech. He is worse than mere spammers who are here trying to make a few bucks using deceptive practices.
He is deceptively claiming to be a victim of anti-free speech policies, when in reality he is here to disrupt and end the free speech of everyone on Voat.
Neither spammers nor people who are here to destroy Voat deserve any special consideration. His restrictions should continue, until he starts doing something seen as constructive or useful by other Voaters.
Smallpond has never once done anything positive for Voat or free speech in general.
the_magic_man ago
This is the problem with voat. "everyone I disagree with is a shill. Downvote".
This very soon means if you post anything left wing, you are restricted.
TheonGreyjoy ago
What's stopping you from downvoting something you don't like and moving on? Oh wait, it's because you have no karma because you kept spamming soros sites, lol.
Crensch ago
Yeah, nobody buys that, faggot.
the_magic_man ago
Nobody buys that? Has the entire OP just gone over your head?
Crensch ago
Not at all, the examples of legitimate users being harmed were completely and utterly dispelled already. Not a single one has been presented that held up to any scrutiny whatsoever.
smallpond ago
Most people have no doubt that I'm a legitimate user. My disclaimer 'whines' about free speech - for over four months now I've been using most of my less than 10 comments per day trying to highlight exactly what this post is addressing as a serious problem. PuttItOut himself didn't complain about the disclaimer when replying to a recent comment of mine. Here is the disclaimer for reference, though I've edited it recently to acknowledge PuttItOut's stated intentions to improve things:
Disclaimer: If we’re conversing, I will soon fall silent. I may want to continue, but because my views are unpopular here I have less than 100 CCP, and am temporarily banned as soon as I make 10 comments in a day. Voat does not respect free speech. Don’t be a hypocrite and pretend that it does.
You on the other hand have been a consistent and staunch critic of free speech in this regard and continue to support ongoing censorship even in this thread. Unable to deter me with your usual bullying and shallow, insincere arguments you even became desperate enough to promote ridiculous lies about me that of course you've been unable to support with any manner of proof. Of all users, I think you're the prime suspect regarding subversion of voat actually being aided by exploitation of CCP restrictions - still think Israel would gladly employ you if they haven't already. I've seen you openly express the sentiment that winning is all that matters more than once - you view principles (whether they be intellectual or moral) as weaknesses: hence you have no credibility and cannot be trusted.
Chiefpacman ago
Its just a little whiney. You drone on about how no cares, and it makes us not care.
Just have your say and move on. Dont ask for pity
smallpond ago
The disclaimer just uses my own account as a simple example - I've stated many times what I'm really concerned about is the overall stifling of dissenting opinions and all the new users who quit shortly after joining: that is, the safespace/echochamber effect on voat as a whole.
This says a lot about your own mental faculties. Are you incapable of considering the truth of a message when you interpret it as 'a little whiney'? I have never said that nobody cares, but do I really just have to tell you that no one cares, to make you not care?
@Tor1 Your nonsense is hardly worth another comment: Almost all I do is harp on about free speech in order to improve voat. You repeatedly state the exact opposite, and of course you can't support your claims with any reasoning or proof.
Edit: To your reply below: Thanks + good to hear you give a shit. I'm clearly not a politician, and probably could have crafted my message a lot better, but better to say something than remain silent. I don't care if my CCP never goes positive - my downvotes don't concern me: censorship on vote does.
Chiefpacman ago
I actually do care though. I groan about dissenting opinions being buried plenty.
I upvoated you and hope you get restrictions taken down or that your ccp goes positive. Good luck
Tor1 ago
I've looked at your early comment history.
The one where you called for the elimination of the cess pit that you believe Voat to be.
You are a liar, and fraud. Not a very good one fortunately for those of us who authentically value Voat.
smallpond ago
More bullshit without proof. Are you incapable of linking to specific comments that might support what you say?
It's true that I have a very low opinion of the level of discourse on voat - it's a notorious echochamber/circlejerk when it comes to contentious ideology. I directly associate voat's cesspit status with its failure to live up to the propaganda: the all-encompassing censorship on a website that's supposed to be for free speech. Voat still has critical mass and many reasonable users - it still has the potential to become an actual bastion of free speech, that potential is why I spend so much time discussing CCP-based censorship.
Edit: Regarding your reply below
I see links are still beyond your capabilities, but from memory those are my words.
Of course there's nothing in there about calling for the elimination of voat - clearly you're still the liar.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
assholes like you piss me off, the userbase of voat is mostly people who have been chased off other platforms for wrongthink and you have the gall to suggest we're censoring you? HEY DUMBASS people need to see and read your bullshit to downvoat it, if you're getting downvoats you're not censored; people heard what you had to say and they didn't like it. You're guaranteed a platform here, not an audience if people don't like you and what you have to say that's your own fault. Kill yourself.
smallpond ago
The only absolute censorship is death. The 'free speech' accorded to me is not even close to yours - hence users like me are being censored. You have virtually unlimited votes/comments/posts compared to me because you're 'popular' according to your CCP score. Seriously upholding free speech does not entail giving speaking rights in proportion to a person's popularity while throttling unpopular users.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
yeah because you think free speech means a captive audience, you think it means we need to put up with your bullshit. You had the same opportunities as everyone else here and you fucked it up all on your own and all I see you doing about it is whining about how the rules should be changed because people don't like you. You're annoying, people not liking you is your own fault, and they don't owe you anything for it. You don't want free speech you want attention your comment is right here I can read it just fine and you could've used it to say ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, so how are you censored? Kill yourself.
smallpond ago
Try to slow down and think.
You could say the same about any censorship: You always have the opportunity to say just what those in power want you to say. When you don't, and they censor you, well that's just your own fault isn't it? You're just reaping the consequences of your actions aren't you?
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
no you can't you retard. The daily stormer doesn't have the same opportunity as other sites because it was removed from the web by it's hosting companies, it's back now but that's censorship. You're not censored, you're just a whiny faggot who can't deal with the fact that people don't like them. You had a fully fair and equal chance to speak your mind and people didn't like what you had to say or how you said it so you have negative CCP, all of that is your own fault and we don't owe you anything. Kill yourself
smallpond ago
Seriously, you can write, so you should have some ability to reason as well...
Just like users on voat the Daily Stormer was not completely silenced - they had darkweb options, their representatives could still speak, and as you say they're back now. They were temporarily silenced just like users on voat are when they run out of comments.
Also, the Daily Stormer had a "fair and equal chance" to speak their mind, they were fully aware of risks of, attitudes towards, and legislation against hate speech, they did their best to provoke cloudflare and others by writing that ridiculous condemnation of the woman that was killed at the worst possible time. People "didn't like what [they] had to say or how [they] said it", all that they experienced in their "own fault" and nobody "owes them anything". Unlike users on voat, which are on a website that is supposed to be a bastion of
respectfree speech, and so might reasonably expect to not be censored; the Stormer didn't even have a reasonable expectation of not being censored: they really did ask for it.Anyway, I wouldn't have bothered replying as it seems clear all this is beyond you, but it's a slow day. Voat has no shortage of people like you who aren't bright enough to work things out and are full of hate - I hope that will change if the censorship ends and the echochamber eases up a little.
Edit:
respectabove.Rainy-Day-Dream ago
I can reason just fine, one could assume you should have some ability to be intellectually honest, but clearly that isn't going to happen.
you're conflating things, if cloudflare and google had left options for the daily stormer to continue being hosted that'd be one thing but otherwise your comparison makes no sense.
no they absolutly did not, they were at a disadvantage from the start and we both know it
according to who? even if that was true respect is earned and someone like you doesn't deserve any no matter where you are.
they'd be fulfilled in that expectation, no matter how much you insist in your nonsense no censorship has befallen you.
cloudflare owes them the service that they paid for in regard to the terms of service they didn't actually break
ad hominem
there isn't any you're just retarded
this doesn't even deserve a response. kill yourself
Since you're resorted to conflating largely dissimilar things and all manner of logical fallacy, I'm going to assume that you at least subconsciously know you don't have any real argument hear and you're full of shit. You might think I keep repeating this just to be "edgy" or something but it's perfectly well-reasoned and sincere advice that could solve all your problems; kill yourself.
smallpond ago
This conversation is ugly as hell. I think you still have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and I probably just made things worse with my last comment (including the 'respect' typo that you swallowed without even noticing).
For the record, and so I can ignore you with a clear conscience, this manner of reasoning that you put forward is bullshit:
You can excuse any censorship with that type of logic, including recent censorship of the Daily Stormer. As I was saying earlier:
In an environment when censorship is active, you always have the opportunity to say just what those in power want you to say. When you don't, and they censor you, it might well be your own fault for willingly breaking the 'rules', but it is still censorship when the rules equate to censorship.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
you're the one who has no idea, what's happening to you isn't censorship plain and simple in the first place. Putting that aside it's something you could have easily avoided and something you could've easily fixed, and I don't mean by changing your views merely presenting them better. You seem really whiny and annoying to me so it's no big surprise you get downvoats. I don't support censorship but I have no problem with bullying whiny faggots like you deserve it.
smallpond ago
This whole thread is about making voat consistent with the principle of free speech - as far as I can tell you think speech is already completely free on voat - this must be a confusing time for you with us moving from your apparent "free speech" to an even more pure form of free speech. If the restrictions being removed to make speech more free aren't censorship, what are they? Apart from censorship, what stops speech from being free? Or is this whole thread just a big mistake that people would be embarrassed by if only they were as smart as you?
There are many people out there who sincerely think Hillary was a force for good and that Trump is concentrated evil, others that sincerely believe that society would be better if we completely eliminated binary gender roles. There is no way for them to fairly have their say here on voat without "changing their views", even if they were naive enough to try to carefully craft their message while pitiful creatures like yourself tell them to kill themselves.
Like so many other angry stupid people, you support censorship when it affects people you don't like, and condemn it only when those you like are on the receiving end.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
I'll keep saying it as many times as I need to, what you're experiencing isn't censorship. At worst it's bullying and I support that because you deserve it.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
why am I the "pitiful creature" when they and yourself can't take simply reasonable advice like that, which would improve their situation?
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
how would society improve by denying simple realities of biology? "gender" doesn't exist in the first place
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
wew, you're really drinking the cool-aid there lad. Name one good thing hillary did in her entire life? maybe when she was a lawyer and couldn't pass the bar exam? or when she put together a defense that was basically slut shaming a little girl who got raped? how about when she was first lady of Arkansas and used unpaid black prison labor to do her housework? or when she was first lady and fired a bunch of tenured staff to replace them with her friends? or said horrible things about the victims of her husband even though she knew they were telling the truth? or how about when she was senator for new york, and as she said at his funeral "learned a lot from her mentor" Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd, a recruiter and grand cyclops of the KKK? how about when she was secretary of state and shut down a pedophilia investigation in the state department to avoid a scandal? Libya? Benghazi? The Russia Reset? The Uranium One deal? or are you going to tell me about the Clinton Foundation of which the overwhelming percentage of the money they receive doesn't go to charity, all their wonderful work in Haiti where they didn't help the people at all (in fact the haitian people and their government hate the clintons) and just gave a bunch of money to her corporate buddies? accepting money from several state sponsors of terror even when she knew at the time they were funding ISIS? Taking obscene amounts of money from big banks, corporations, and special interests?
ALL of that can be verified easily from wikileaks and news, mainstream news, reports. All without even touching any of the alleged death and conspiracy that seem to surround her. Explain to me how such a woman could ever be a force for good when she's never been anything but a force for herself making money by any means necessary?
smallpond ago
Are you at all capable of abstract thought? How do you manage to survive?
I'm not saying that I sincerely believe that! I'm saying that many people exist that have those sincere beliefs. If you give them their free speech on voat, you can have fun chatting with them. That wall of text is wasted on me - I certainly have no love for Hillary, nor do I believe that society would be better without binary gender roles.
You can say it's not censorship as much as you like, you can't answer my questions trying to probe the logic of your beliefs, I doubt your ability to understand the questions at all. Good luck - I find you deserving of pity because of all your anger, and your inability to reason - the world must be a scary place for you.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
you say those views are censored here, but you just voiced them. How retarded are you? do you have brain damage?
Tor1 ago
In your own words...
I am here firstly advocating for free speech, but also view voat as a dangerous safespace that creates hateful/violent racists out of weak-minded people. Donating towards that is a non-starter right now: if voat ever decided to adopt free-speech as a serious priority in future that could change.
Another cherrypicked/fake story of a woman being stupid so you losers can imagine you're better than something: Yep, voat is the Usain Bolt of internet retardation.
Sorry, repeating the lie you tell your morons doesn't make it true. CCP rules mean people with unpopular opinions have their speech severely restricted compared to your run-of-the mill voat racist/sexist. I don't think shit content like this would survive without voat's severe inbreeding by design.
Crensch ago
Archive that shit, man. He's the type that will delete his comments to preserve his current narrative.