[–] ketsuban [S] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
https://voat.co/v/funny/comments/215454/652274
These users are creating new accounts just to spam this. As you can see, (at the time of writing) this account is three hours old.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
If it's site-enforced I'd agree. But how about using a spam filter and once the "Downvote" copypasta is detected, a red "!" in a warning triangle pops up next to "Report Spam".
Clicking that will prevent everything setting off the same spam-filter trigger from showing it on YOUR user?
It would demand more effort from the individual user to block spam but it wouldn't be close to censorship.
Voat just needs a public trashbin that everybody can check and view what and who gets blocked, and have a way to overrule a mod if enough people vote it back in. Balance of power is key, we do not want any slimey shadowbanning because that is one of the biggest censorship tools reddit has. Its purpose started out to block spam and it quickly got abused by mods and admins to flat out block anyone and anything they did not like for personal or shill reasons.
[–] Chih 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I'm worried if this would turns into an arms race, of sorts. Ban this wall of text (how? will come back to that...), it will get changed slightly. Ban v2, there will be v3, etc.
So ban the accounts that do it? They make new ones. Ban IPs? That could be problematic for people who share connections (not just households, I'm thinking universities...)
And with the initial restriction of downvoats, new people like me essentially count on older users to use their downvoats to clean up spam. And back to the first point, how do you ban a wall of text? Do you check each new post to see if it's a copy (then check for v2, v3, etc... that's gonna eat up resources), or do you focus on post structure and a handful of keywords (which would open the possibility of false positive bans, not good for a site that values freedom above all)?
I'm no expert, but I can't think of any way to make this feasible without unintended consequences. I mean, you could try to temp-ban people who get too many downvoats, but that would be abused. You could consider letting anyone downvoat a post once it hit a certain threshold (-10? -15?), but that also would be gamed over time. Apply selective pressure to spammers, they will evolve to flourish in a new paradigm. Apply widespread pressure, and regular users will shoulder the burden as well, and lessen the idea of a community free of meddling.
In the end, that copypasta is the Westboro Church of Voat. It's here, it's going to continue to be an annoyance. It will trick new users into thinking there is a controversy where there is none. And all the average user can do is hide their hollow protest from site with their downvoats. Me personally, I write it off as the 'cost of business' of being on the internet, along with pun threads and rickrolls.
[–] ketsuban [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You have a good point. It would be very difficult to enforce.
I have a feeling that at least, if there is a filter that says "contains these words in this order" (in an undisclosed way as to make them guess) in the fashion of the copypasta, that they might at least write new copypasta. New copypasta would at least be more amusing to read.
[–] johnparish 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I am not sure if Voat has that capability. Still in Alpha and such.
Normally I would be against that, but considering it is just one guy with no life, if it is possible I support it.
[–] ketsuban [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Just one guy? I'd be interested to know if it's just one, or a group of 3 or so people.
I'm against it because it's baiting new members.
[–] johnparish 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I meant against censoring a copypasta. If it was anything besides the MH101 guys I would be against it.
Maybe it is three, I just get the feeling either way it is all centered in one mans basement.