Free Speech
The basis of what most people are referring to when they say "free speech" in English:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
Note that there are no exceptions to this listed in the text of the amendment, but US courts (and most reasonable people) hold that there are in fact some exceptions - inciting violence & criminal activity, libel/slander, and child pornography, to name a few. Generally, speech is a candidate for an exception if it in some way infringes on someone else's rights. As the saying goes, "Your rights end where another's begin."
Censorship
Censorship, then, would be acts by a government that contradict the above-defined right to freedom of expression when such expression does not fit into one of the exceptions.
Free Speech on a Website
The US' first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law", so no non-governmental entity, regardless of its actions, can ever violate someone's first amendment rights. While technically correct, stopping there is uninteresting in the context of websites where users can submit content. Voat declaring itself a "free speech zone" perhaps means something like this:
Site operators will take no action limiting the freedom of expression of users of the website.
However, here, too, there are some necessary exceptions. From the site operators, the user agreement explicitly calls out some behaviors which will not be permitted. A rigorous "free speech zone" would probably try to limit such exclusions to actions that impact the ability of other users to use the site as the site was intended to be used - in a way that mirrors the free speech exceptions to the first amendment.
So perhaps a more complete summary of a "free speech zone" site's policy might be
Site operators will take no action limiting the freedom of expression of users of the website except where such expressions prevent other users from using the website the way the website was intended to be used.
This covers both "interfering-with-other-users"-style offenses which prevent users from using the site and "interferes-with-site"-style offenses which prevent the site from being available for use.
What Censorship on a Website is
Within the context of "free speech on a website" above, then, a website would commit an act of censorship if the site operators deliberately intervened to single out a subset of users that were only doing things within the scope of the site, and limit that subset of users' ability to express themselves on the site.
If the site operators just don't like Buddhists, and ban+delete any account that claimed to be a Buddhist, that would clearly and blatantly be censorship.
Administrative Actions
Per Voat's user agreement:
This agreement is a legal contract between you and us. You acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. If you do not agree to this agreement, you should not use voat.
...
Without advance notice and at any time, we may, for violations of this agreement or for any other reason we choose: (1) suspend your access to voat, (2) suspend or terminate Your Account, and/or (3) remove any of your User Content from voat.
While this could literally never be real-world censorship since Voat is not a part of any government, the admins would be fully within their rights to censor anyone's expression for any reason on their own website that they built because, well, it's theirs and our use of it is a privilege.
Users of Voat that value free speech will just have to hope that the admins don't do this... and leave Voat for somewhere else if the admins ever do.
What Censorship on a Website is NOT
The Inability of Downvoated Accounts to Submit Content
It's the Users, not the Admins!
Downvoats come from the users, not from the administration. Every account can comment and submit posts upon its creation. The users of the site use the two core mechanics Voat's design - voting and commenting - to react to submitted content. This happens after the content is submitted - it doesn't ever prevent the first submission!
If a particular account continues to submit content that the community doesn't enjoy, the mechanics of Voat may restrict that account's ability to submit content.
This is not a deliberate singling-out of a user or user(s) by the site operators based on what the user(s) chose to express - this is a community saying "we do not want to experience this content here."
It's how Voat is!
This design is part of Voat's core mechanics and can be looked at as an analogy to the social contract that people abide by in the real world. Voat is not a scrolling text feed of whatever content anyone can submit; it provides mechanics for communities to share and curate content. Every account (by virtue of the way Voat is coded) is forced to abide by the "contract" of Voat's mechanics.
Things that users are not entitled to just by virtue of creating an account on Voat include
- people liking the content they submit
- getting any quantity of SCP or CCP
- communities centered on one particular type of content being interested in content that isn't of that type (i.e. there is no reasonable expectation that /v/gifs would be pleased with daily postings of non-animated JPGs)
Go To Your Own Space!
Even if a user runs afoul of several or even all of the communities on Voat, nothing stops them from creating their own community (subverse) where they can engage in whatever kind of expression they want so long as it doesn't run afoul of the user agreement.
/v/Niggers is a prime example of a community / users that get this. It's extremely unlikely that most of the posts there would be well-received in other communities on Voat. If that community started posting to, say, /v/politics, it's likely that most posts would be heavily downvoated and/or removed by moderators there. Fortunately for the /v/Niggers community, the mechanics of Voat and the commitment to freedom of expression on the part of the Voat administrators mean that this community was able to create their own subverse and engage in their desired expression.
That's freedom of expression at work!
Here's a real-world analogy:
You show up at a nightclub to DJ, and instead of the house/trance/EDM/Dubstep/whatever that the clientele are expecting you play children's music. The crowd will probably boo you and the manager will probably ask you to leave. This would probably happen at every nightclub in town! If a club invited you back for a 2nd chance and you did it again, they probably wouldn't ask you back a third time! Are you being censored!? No - nowhere is there a government saying you can't play your children's music. What's happening is that you went into some other community's space and tried to fit in and failed and they expressed that you weren't welcome there anymore. Go to the appropriate venue (like an elementary-school concert) or your own home and you won't find a group of people reacting to your content with negativity and asking you to leave their space.
Moderators Removing Content
Moderators are users. They have more abilities to interact with Voat's mechanics than non-moderator users, but they are still users, not administrators. Moderator actions are user actions. Moderators removing content from a subverse on Voat is not equivalent to Voat censoring a user's freedom of expression. Each subverse is designed to collect and curate content that fits certain criteria and foster a community around that content. Removal of content that doesn't fit the criteria of one subverse is not equivalent to site-wide censorship.
This applies to Moderators banning users from a subverse, too.
It is totally possible for a moderator to remove content that, per the sub's stated purpose, shouldn't have been removed. If the community that hangs out in that sub disagrees with the action, they should take the moderator to task and replace them if the moderator demonstrates that they will continue to act against the stated interests of the community.
Still, though, all of that is user-level: If I found one day that all my submissions to /v/80smusic were deleted by a moderator shortly after being submitted, that still isn't equivalent to Voat censoring /u/SpottyMatt: It's only one corner where it's happening and the Voat admins have had no part in it; I am still free to submit content to other communities and create my own communities.
System Subverses
System subverses, despite being "subverses" are the closest Voat has to "public spaces" in the "free speech under the US constitution" analogy. If there is undue content-removal in a system subverse then and only then it may be appropriate to claim that "Voat is censoring freedom of expression" in some way as these subverses have been explicitly chosen as core, system-and-not-user-owned spaces on Voat. To uphold Voat's commitment to freedom of expression, the admins should pay close attention to the actions of moderators in system subverses.
Crensch ago
OP:
EIMR ago
Free Speech is separate from, and more broad than the First Amendment. Moderation and downvotes are censorship, the question is whether it is good or bad censorship.
Amalek2016 ago
Mental illness, conspiracy theorist, tinfoil hat...
Just character assassination attempts to discredit me. Who tries and discredits mentally ill people?
I hope people learn to spot people like you.
How's the weather in Tel Aviv?
Amalek2016 ago
We have to start being more vocal about this. We have truth on our side. We can't let these people do what they did to Reddit.
Amalek2016 ago
So internet censorship is a myth?
Amalek2016 ago
Because it gives you a limit of a few comments per day. I wasn't at the limit yet. Now I am.
go1dfish ago
I sympathize with you amalek I really do. The problem is you are trying to push your opinions too hard.
Make a new account (you don't seem to have much trouble with this) and try posting a single thought to a single subverse and not spamming across subverses and accounts for a while.
I don't think your ideas are really all that unpopular here; you are persecuted for your tactics and prolificness to the point that you have become a joke that even the admins have joined in on (see the donation levels)
I agree with you that down votes constitute a form of mild censorship, but when you try to flood the site it only makes people want to down vote you more. If all else fails, stick to your own subs and try to build a following that way.
Amalek2016 ago
If this it what it takes to expose the lack of integrity than maybe it's worth it. I agree with you too though, but whenever I try and post something just once it usually gets brigaded indiscriminately, which is why I'm forced to spam my message to get visibility.
Down votes shouldn't result in account restrictions. Because of that I'm forced to create alts, or I can't comment.
@go1dfish
Well why do you call it a conspiracy when everything I say is admitted and factually sourced? I post information the MSM doesn't. That's all I do. I don't fabricate anything.
Libya and Syria were destabilized for Israel. I can show you Hillary's emails admitting this. Everything I say is based on factual information from government or historical/academic sources.
go1dfish ago
At this point you represent a 'brand' with negative connotations. Try disassociating yourself from it and not overdoing things.
Create an alt, not tied to the existing "Amalek" name, and try to contribute in a more measured way and see what happens.
Personally I don't agree with your views on jewish conspiracy etc...., but if you selectively post them in places where the subscribers are likely to be receptive of them, and don't go cross posting EVERYWHERE and saying you're doing it; you will have a much better reaction.
If that fails, try posting things that you expect people will like and upvote even if you don't agree with the message, I post stuff I don't agree with all the time. Just because you post something isn't an endorsement of what it says.
Cynabuns ago
You're not alone in your advice, and thank you; there's a few of us now and again that have taken the time to give him suggestions and feedback. I really thought he was headed this 'better' direction the other day with one of his accounts and he even created a new sub -- lots of discussion and upvotes too. But then he began again to spam the other subs, which of course got downvoted into oblivion, a reflection of as you so aptly put it, being "persecuted for [his] tactics and prolificness". I am hopeful that yours and other such advice reaches him. Someday.
Amalek2016 ago
Another audio recording explaining censorship on Voat. New recording. Just made it.
https://voat.co/v/whatever/comments/975391
http://picosong.com/NAY3
Snit_from_YTV ago
You're ignoring the facts on purpose.
Down votes result in account restrictions and you can no longer comment once you go into negative CCP.
That's the issue here you're purposely ignoring.
TheDude2 ago
Tldr
But whatever it is. We want to read it all. Type it all. Delete nothing. We've been over this.
Snit_from_YTV ago
So I guess Reddit isn't censored since they aren't government right?
So internet censorship is a myth?? Answer me OP.
SpottyMatt ago
Websites and their administrative teams can and absolutely do censor users' freedom of expression.
I think it's disingenuous to cast subverse-level restrictions on user expression as "censorship" since they are leveraging the mechanics of the shared community platform to build and shape the subverse's community - just as I would find it disingenuous to complain about the censorship of punk rock bands on country radio stations.
But of course, moderators can also unduly censure free expression.
Amalek2016 ago
They're site wide restrictions. - CCP and you can only comment like 3 times a day. Site wide.
Stop fucking lying.
SpottyMatt ago
Yes, submitting content in places that causes people to use the Voat platform's mechanics to express their dissatisfaction with the content results in the Voat platform's mechanics limiting the submitting accounts' ability to submit content.
Submissions that
Have all been explicitly stated by as being unwelcome, and it shouldn't surprise anyone to see such submissions removed. Is this a technical limit on raw freedom of expression? Yes - in the same way that sushi recipes aren't welcome at a chili cookoff.
You of all people should know how trivial it is to just create a new account and continue to submit content and express yourself in spite of the effects of -CCP ;)
Amalek2016 ago
People use down votes to silence opposition. They use it as a disagree button and it's a known fact. People are abusing the systems to censor users.
SpottyMatt ago
Absolutely correct except that the word "abusing" should just be "using."
Communities use the tools of downvoats and moderation to create the kind of community and curate the kind of content they want.
This isn't bad or wrong!
People are allowed to have their own opinions. They're allowed to not want to see certain things. They're allowed, in fact, to create and manage a subverse that contains the kind of community and kind of content that they want!
"Voat is a place for freedom of expression" does not mean that "On Voat, I can post my content anywhere I want and everyone is required to be glad of it."
I means, "On Voat, if I cannot find a place to freely express myself, I am permitted to create one and express myself there. I expect that other users of Voat will respect my place, and in return I will respect theirs so that freedom of expression remains accessible to all."
Nazibot7 ago
Unpopular opinion is protected under free speech. You're basically saying it isn't.
Down votes shouldn't result in account restrictions. That's inexcusable. It means only popular opinion gets heard You don't understand that?
Voat is also for debate and discussion. You want to isolate yourself from opposing views.
Snit_from_YTV ago
Exactly. These people are exploiting the system and trying to convince us that it's not censorship... I hope people start to see what's up here.
We need to reach out to more people and continue to be vocal about it.
Snit_from_YTV ago
The second half was copy/paste.
Snit_from_YTV ago
Wow. OP is legitimately trying to confuse us into not being able to even identify censorship.
WTF-_ ago
See the shills man?
They're down voting you for saying what the actual definition of censorship is.
This is an organized attack on free speech to try and confuse people into not knowing what censorship is.
WTF-_ ago
Censorship isn't just censorship if government is doing it. Look up the definition of free speech.
" Any constraint to free speech"
-Google
Stop attacking free speech.
TheTrigger ago
Depends; it can be. Depends on who has the powers and how they use'em. I don't want/need that responsibility.
Voatdead ago
Censorship doesn't have to be from government to be censorship. Censorship is defined as any constraint to free speech. Account restrictions are a constraint.
Now being able to comment anymore is censorship because it's a constraint.
As explained here.
Uhhh, censorship doesn't have to come from government to be censorship. Censorship is ANY constraint to free speech. Account restrictions from down votes is a constraint.
As I explain here.
http://picosong.com/NAnW
Voatdead ago
Uhhh, censorship doesn't have to come from government to be censorship. Censorship is ANY constraint to free speech. Account restrictions from down votes is a constraint.
As I explain here.
http://picosong.com/NAnW
Crensch ago
So when I change the channel on my TV, I'm censoring the people that put their messages out on the other channels?
Voatdead ago
No, they're still talking. You're simply not listening.idiot.
Voatdead ago
Censorship isn't just a government thing...wow you people don't even know what censorship even is...
If a private citizen can prevent another private citizen from speaking that's called censorship.
Downvotes result in account restrictions. Not being able to talk anymore is censorship by definition.
go1dfish ago
I disagree, both moderation and down votes are a form of censorship.
Down votes are IMO more acceptable than moderation because it is a distributed form of weak censorship. People can still view the underlying content if they want to dig deeper into the listing/thread.
Moderation is potentially quite strong censorship and is part of the reason reddit has gotten as shitty as it is. The decisions of a hyper-minority of users deciding what the rest are capable of seeing at all is potentially much more dangerous than letting the collective voice decide the sorting of content (through voting)
It is true that none of this would be considered 1st amendment violations, and those that scream 1st amendment rights when they are censored this way come off as ignorant. But it's still very much a form of censorship.
Cynabuns ago
If anything, it's censure by the users but not censorship. Most (good) mods perform their moderation duties by a consensus of the users.
SarMegahhikkitha ago
How are you a /v/ProtectVoat mod? Even SRS-controlled /v/whatever has more common sense than you.
SpottyMatt ago
I really like the user censure/platform censor distinction, but I unfortunately used all 10,000 characters in the original post so I cannot add it in.
Amalek2016 ago
So internet censorship is a myth? Can't reply to me or what?
Snit_from_YTV ago
Also, did I invent the term peer censorship?
Snit_from_YTV ago
So you're saying internet censorship is a myth because it's not government doing it?
So Reddit isn't censored?
Answer me.
Snit_from_YTV ago
So peer censorship is just a term I invented?
smokratez ago
Not popular. You have to cry like a bitch that the evil racists and right wingers are down voting you. That will get you upvotes. Include a picture of your cat to seal the deal.
SpottyMatt ago
TL;DR
Things Voat Users are Not Entitled To
Being denied any of these things to which you are not entitled does not constitute censorship on the part of Voat.
Things Voat Users Are Entitled To
Assuming
Then Voat users are entitled to
Being denied any of these things to which you are entitled may be construed as censorship on the part of Voat.
Pithy Sound Bite
"Voat is a place for freedom of expression."
Does Not Mean
Does Mean
TheTrigger ago
One of these things is not like the other. Glossing over the fact that you lumped a lot of unrelated things together in your "Not Entitled To" section, each of which merit their own topic of discussion: your "Entitled To" section limits (trivializes) the topic of system subs. They live by "the ideology" of voat.
All "large" (read: important to the community) subs eventually lose private ownership and become "democratized".
Sorry, but this is 'murrica.
SpottyMatt ago
I disagree that this is the way things are, and disagree that is is the way that things should be.
If I created /v/SpottyMattsClubhouse and it became extremely popular, I disagree that it would ever be appropriate for the community of Voat or Voat itself to take over management of that subverse from me.
It's easier to forget that a real person had to create and curate and grow a community when the name of the subverse doesn't have a username in it ( e.g. /v/80smusic ) but I do not think that lessens the creators' claim on the community space they created.
Not everyone will agree, and at some point in the life of a popular community space the members of the community and the space's managers will have to work that out.
Cynabuns ago
Well done, sir.
Snit_from_YTV ago
So internet censorship is a myth? Because it's not government doing it?
Voatdead ago
Uhhh, censorship doesn't have to come from government to be censorship. Censorship is ANY constraint to free speech. Account restrictions from down votes is a constraint.
As I explain here.
http://picosong.com/NAnW
...