So does that justify banning domains? Because the Voat Admin just banned the Discord domain over this silly witch hunt. Honestly I was just laughing about the whole fiasco up until now. The evidence presented in OP is a user submitted community suggestion with two votes that everyone hated. The discord team has already stated They won't monitize Discord which is supposedly what this whole fiasco is about. So...what gives? This would be like banning the Reddit domain because people on Voat are outraged about a particular subreddit. It's a concerning precedence to set. Hell this probably goes above and beyond any censorship Reddit has ever done considering they haven't even banned the Voat domain. This is a site-wide ban.
I already explained this previously and yea I'm talking about it a lot today. This is a big fucking deal to me. The entire premise of this website is free speech and now they are arbitrarily site-wide banning benign domains because a couple users rabble rabbled until they got their way? That's kind of a big deal dude.
If Discord was an information source maybe. It's not. It's a chat platform that's being used as a vector to attack Voaters. Has nothing to do with the free flow of information. And you can still post about Discord here all day if you want, as you have been doing.
It's a chat platform that's being used as a vector to attack Voaters.
Where's the evidence for this? Don't you think that if you were doxxed just by joining a chat room that it wouldn't be one of the highest ranked services in the US?
Discord has been used several times to collect information on /pol/ users, this is the exact same tactic here. Tons of popular sites and services have horrible vulnerabilities and they get exploited all the time, hence the constant stories about "~X million passwords have been hacked today from...". Vulnerabilities don't prevent a site or service from being popular, and vulnerabilities don't mean that you get "doxxed just be joining".
I asked for evidence and then you basically said "exploiters exploit things" so I asked for evidence again. And you still haven't provided it so, once again. Evidence?
You claimed that banning Discord links was a violation of Voat's free speech principles. Wrong. Discord is not an information source and you're free to post about it all day, as you've been doing. Retreated. You claimed that there's nothing fishy going on because Discord is a popular site and therefore must be secure. Wrong. Retreated. You conflated the existence of security vulnerabilities with every user of a site being doxed. Stupid. Retreated.
I don't have archives of the relevant /pol/ threads, but this did happen before. Believe me or don't.
You claimed that banning Discord links was a violation of Voat's free speech principles. Wrong. Discord is not an information source.
That's your opinion. I still stand by that. How is a social platform not an information source anyways? You may as well say Reddit is not an information source since Reddit itself contains no information but rather, the users who post within it. And there's plenty of things which are not explicitly informational sources that would still be questionable bans, like image hosting sites.
You conflated the existence of security vulnerabilities with every user of a site being doxed. Stupid.
I didn't. Your comprehension is a little bit off.
You claimed that there's nothing fishy going on because Discord is a popular site and therefore must be secure. Wrong.
I asked for evidence that it's not secure. Which you still haven't provided. Which I searched for and couldn't locate. The purpose of this is because it begs the question "what is the site-wide ban based off of?". Someone saying it's not secure while simultaneously providing zero evidence. So, one more time. Evidence?
If you don't see why using anecdotal evidence to arbitrarily justify sweeping site wide bans is unreasonable then you have concluded my point. GOOD DAY SIR. Peace love and prosperity to you and yours ✌️
You should probably go back to reddit with that attitude. I'm telling you why I believe what I believe, and it's perfectly reasonable. I'm not trying to present you with a proof that will satisfy your hemorrhoids.
view the rest of the comments →
Trash_Panda ago
So does that justify banning domains? Because the Voat Admin just banned the Discord domain over this silly witch hunt. Honestly I was just laughing about the whole fiasco up until now. The evidence presented in OP is a user submitted community suggestion with two votes that everyone hated. The discord team has already stated They won't monitize Discord which is supposedly what this whole fiasco is about. So...what gives? This would be like banning the Reddit domain because people on Voat are outraged about a particular subreddit. It's a concerning precedence to set. Hell this probably goes above and beyond any censorship Reddit has ever done considering they haven't even banned the Voat domain. This is a site-wide ban.
superesper ago
CCP farming much?
Trash_Panda ago
I already explained this previously and yea I'm talking about it a lot today. This is a big fucking deal to me. The entire premise of this website is free speech and now they are arbitrarily site-wide banning benign domains because a couple users rabble rabbled until they got their way? That's kind of a big deal dude.
superesper ago
If Discord was an information source maybe. It's not. It's a chat platform that's being used as a vector to attack Voaters. Has nothing to do with the free flow of information. And you can still post about Discord here all day if you want, as you have been doing.
Trash_Panda ago
Where's the evidence for this? Don't you think that if you were doxxed just by joining a chat room that it wouldn't be one of the highest ranked services in the US?
superesper ago
Discord has been used several times to collect information on /pol/ users, this is the exact same tactic here. Tons of popular sites and services have horrible vulnerabilities and they get exploited all the time, hence the constant stories about "~X million passwords have been hacked today from...". Vulnerabilities don't prevent a site or service from being popular, and vulnerabilities don't mean that you get "doxxed just be joining".
Trash_Panda ago
Again, where's the evidence for this?
superesper ago
I like how you progressively retreat from more and more claims without ever acknowledging that you were wrong/being dishonest. LOL.
Trash_Panda ago
I asked for evidence and then you basically said "exploiters exploit things" so I asked for evidence again. And you still haven't provided it so, once again. Evidence?
superesper ago
You claimed that banning Discord links was a violation of Voat's free speech principles. Wrong. Discord is not an information source and you're free to post about it all day, as you've been doing. Retreated. You claimed that there's nothing fishy going on because Discord is a popular site and therefore must be secure. Wrong. Retreated. You conflated the existence of security vulnerabilities with every user of a site being doxed. Stupid. Retreated.
I don't have archives of the relevant /pol/ threads, but this did happen before. Believe me or don't.
Trash_Panda ago
That's your opinion. I still stand by that. How is a social platform not an information source anyways? You may as well say Reddit is not an information source since Reddit itself contains no information but rather, the users who post within it. And there's plenty of things which are not explicitly informational sources that would still be questionable bans, like image hosting sites.
I didn't. Your comprehension is a little bit off.
I asked for evidence that it's not secure. Which you still haven't provided. Which I searched for and couldn't locate. The purpose of this is because it begs the question "what is the site-wide ban based off of?". Someone saying it's not secure while simultaneously providing zero evidence. So, one more time. Evidence?
No evidence, no ban. It's as simple as that. L
superesper ago
Again, I know this happened before even though I don't have links. Whether you believe this or not is your choice and I don't care at all.
Trash_Panda ago
If you don't see why using anecdotal evidence to arbitrarily justify sweeping site wide bans is unreasonable then you have concluded my point. GOOD DAY SIR. Peace love and prosperity to you and yours ✌️
superesper ago
You should probably go back to reddit with that attitude. I'm telling you why I believe what I believe, and it's perfectly reasonable. I'm not trying to present you with a proof that will satisfy your hemorrhoids.
Mr_Dusk ago
@superesper stop flaming this account you're just giving sane exactly what he wants.