7
516

[–] DarkNoobz 7 points 516 points (+523|-7) ago 

As a site run by two guys with no lawyers.... yes. Lol.

1
186

[–] SourPatchWatermelon 1 points 186 points (+187|-1) ago 

Thats how I feel. If there's any chance of them making it through this media storm alive, banning the subs was a necessary evil.

4
66

[–] DarkNoobz 4 points 66 points (+70|-4) ago 

thanks for being one of the good guys

21
44

[–] Fuck_Voat_Censorship 21 points 44 points (+65|-21) ago 

Making it through alive? Implementing censorship isn't making it through alive. This site seemed good for the first day-and-a-half I've known about it. Then this. Oh well.

49
30

[–] obriets34 49 points 30 points (+79|-49) ago  (edited ago)

If we ban pics of girls we should just do a sitewide ban of guy pics as well. We can't have feminists fingerbanging to underage boys.

In fact, let's just ban ANY pic just to be on the safe side.

This is really just a censorship issue. There's porn of all kinds on every single site out there. There's BARELY LEGAL TEEN porn which is extremely popular. Hell, even Brooke Shields and Traci Lords put underage porn into MAINSTREAM MOVIES.

Sure we shouldn't be sexualizing naked children, but if you're going to start banning legal content just for the sake of hoping to catch illegal content, how is that any different than an officer firing into the crowd of a fleeing robber with a shotgun just to make sure he gets the bad guy?

Do just like any other site: do your DUE DILIGENCE to remove any illegal content just as any site would. But it's definitely not your responsibility to police ALL content. That's just impossible. Even 4chan is notorious for DAILY KIDDIE PORN PICS. but the mods remove them as soon as they can because they CAN'T be held accountable for other people's posts otherwise reddit would likewise be held liable for ANY instance of an illegal pic.

Even Iggy Azalea made a child porn video where she tried to seduce an underage little boy with her pussy. That was allowed on YOUTUBE. So let's not get ahead of ourselves here. It's really not about the images themselves as much as the gatekeepers in charge of SEXUALIZING THE CONTEXT according to their feminist agenda.

I've seen pics on reddit of parents and strangers posting pics of naked kids playing in a bathtub or near the shower. If ALL naked children are to be removed, those would fall under 'illegal'.

If something is sexualizing a child in an obvious manner, we can remove it, no problem. But if someone is using their feminist liberal agenda to say "THAT is sexual TO ME" then we should tell them to fuck off. I mean social justice warriors support and still buy Lena Dunham's book where she admits to MOLESTING HER LITTLE SISTER. Except it's not considered molestation because the Social Justice Warriors are in charge of setting the context. Instead of Lena Dunham the CHILD MOLESTER touching her sister's vagina, it's warped into a fun childhood game of innocent curiosity. Again, it all depends on the gatekeeper's interpretation of events.

Our goal should be to stand against censorship, not give it an excuse to GROW.

But wait there's more!

Why is this girl allowed to create child porn for YOUTUBE?

To help voat in answering the legal question, according to the fucktard keyboard warriors on here, this girl is a child porn producer and YOUTUBE is her distribution center.

Conclusion: BAN YOUTUBE.

CASE CLOSED.

0
10

[–] Tron 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

I also agree with this (But don't have much more to say than than what you two have said so I'm not going to make a top-level comment)

[–] [deleted] 2 points 39 points (+41|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

5
38

[–] mcfortyoz 5 points 38 points (+43|-5) ago 

I really don't think it should ever even come up in a discussion. CP is illegal and the people who get off on that are sick, they need help, not a platform for them to engage their twisted fantasies with each other.

0
14

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

Agreed, there are some battles to fight and there are some to let go. I mean in principle people should be able to do anything that isn't illegal, but any legal fees would destroy this site, and that would suck a lot.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
5

[–] Arcynic 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

I mean, if you think the subs should be gone, then fine, but stop with this "for now" bullshit. Everyone knows they're never coming back. Censorship doesn't recede as a site gets bigger.

13
224

[–] ExtravagantBum 13 points 224 points (+237|-13) ago 

Jailbait was very strictly moderated to keep images of women that were fairly clearly 16 and over, the age of consent in voats host country. We immediately delete the things posted from SRS and other creeps. From gore, scat, ladyboys, everything. We worked hard to ensure that it wouldn't risk the safety of VOAT.

I took over the inactive jailbait sub because I knew if something was banned it would be that and I wanted to be aware immediately if censorship was coming to VOAT. It came faster than expected. I'm beyond disappointed in how high I got my hopes for VOAT. There was no child pornography on /v/jailbait. There were no videos of people having sex. Primarily there were selfies of clothed 16\17 girls and naked pictures rarely of women who look young but would certainly be old enough for porn. Worked hard to keep it that way.

10
77

[–] Pwib 10 points 77 points (+87|-10) ago 

Censorship came to Voat much faster than it came to Reddit. I wonder how many days /v/fatpeoplehate has left.

3
91

[–] AntigravityHat 3 points 91 points (+94|-3) ago 

FPH won't be banned. They didn't ban the subs because they wanted to censor the community, they wanted to protect themselves from legal problems and jailbait had the high likelihood of causing exactly that.

[–] [deleted] 14 points 23 points (+37|-14) ago 

[Deleted]

0
7

[–] code 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

If you don't learn from the mistakes of others you repeat them.

0
3

[–] HilariousReference 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

At least they were clearer then reddit was when they banned the fappening. I remember they said they were trying to make reddit into a better environment. What a load of shit.

0
37

[–] HammerHorror 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

While I don't agree with the content of the sub, I think your opinion on this is very important. This should be upvoated for visibility.

1
5

[–] CaptnMeowMix 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Exactly, I strongly urge people to think critically about all the claims being made about this sub. Just think for a second how SJWs try to paint voat as an evil shit hole, and the types of claims you see getting thrown at /v/jailbait with little concrete evidence. Now only a small handful of people (that would understandably be hesitant about identifying themselves) would be able to attest to ExtravagantBum's claims that it was a mild and heavily moderated sub, making it the perfect time for any SJW/reddit-apologists to chime in with their "triggering" experiences in that sub in order to persuade people into censorship. There wouldn't be any way to disprove such claims, and seeing as how most users would've never gone into that sub, it really makes everyone unintentionally susceptible to supporting censorship.

It's not a pretty thought, but it's the reality of modern online politics. If you don't believe me, I highly suggest reading the book "Trust Me, I'm Lying".

1
22

[–] GrumpyMidlifeCrisis 1 points 22 points (+23|-1) ago 

If the age of consent was 16-years-old in the host country and there were no images of individuals under the age of 16, I don't understand why the sub was banned.

0
24

[–] Googlygoink 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

In the last 24 hours there were a tonne of photos posted that were the same as in tjb, so pretty much cp, as long as people keep trying to post there (SJW's) with the questionable content it's going to be a headache for atko while the website is still a fledgeling.

I feel the ban was justified, and short of having a system where every had to be approved to appear rather than having to be deleted i don't see a better solution at least in the short term.

It may come back and it may not, but for now they need to keep looking as clean as possible from a legal standpoint.

1
7

[–] ExtravagantBum 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Jailbait is always the front line if censorship vs free speech because it lies in that grey area of morality where you have to use some judgement to make sure the content is safe for all involved. I guess freedom was less important than safety in this case. But if you sacrifice freedom for temporary safety, you deserve neither.

1
5

[–] moons 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

bad pr. too much ammunition for sjws to use.

0
1

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_ESSENCE 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

maybe the standard should be the "age of consent in ISIL"; you know. 9. That's a legal standard, right?

0
20

[–] Abe_Lincoln 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Age of consent in Switzerland is 16 for sex. As of July 2014, they signed onto a child porn treaty that bumped the age up to 18 for porn. So yes, they were actively encouraging users to post content that is illegal in Switzerland. And who verifies the age of the girls posted? The admins are too busy. People who don't want to masturbate to teenage girls aren't on that sub. So we have a sub full of pictures of underaged girls in mini-skirts and naked pictures of girls of unknown age, with the only reason to believe they are 18 (or 16, even though 18 is the legal minimum) are the same people masturbating to underage girls in miniskirts.

Until Voat has the resources to have outside admins/mods police that sub, I don't trust it, sorry. Particularly when the people running the sub never even bothered to look into child porn laws in Switzerland, and most of the people on that sub are from the US regardless.

0
7

[–] Adje 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You make very good points here... It's illogical to work under the assumption that the girls are legal unless proven otherwise. In the porn industry and even on /r/gonewild, there are mechanisms in place to verify the age of the models. Are the mods of /v/jailbait getting in touch with the girls in the pictures to verify their age if/when there is nudity? I highly doubt that they could even if they wanted to.

Edit: It has been pointed out that I may be wrong about age verification on gw, which may be just as big of an oversight.

7
118

[–] Kingmaker [S] 7 points 118 points (+125|-7) ago  (edited ago)

I personally think banning /v/truejailbait, /v/jailbait and /v/doxbin was the right choice because they were legal hazards. But banning /v/thefappening, which was legal and complied with all of Voat's regulations, feels like censorship.

3
76

[–] whiteguy88 3 points 76 points (+79|-3) ago 

Probably not legal in places where they are already setting up laws against revenge porn. In the case of the fappening, it is clear that images were illegally obtained due to a vulnerability in iCloud. I'm all about free speech, but I'm also all in about privacy protection.

0
23

[–] Nerded 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

Exactly. There's definitely a difference between the two (free speech and privacy protection) that a lot of people are failing the realize.

2
11

[–] Kingmaker [S] 2 points 11 points (+13|-2) ago  (edited ago)

But are there Swiss laws that made /v/thefappening illegal? Atko didn't mention any so I assume the subverse was banned because they wanted to avoid conflict over it. If there are laws that made /v/thefappening illegal then I agree with you, it should've been banned like any other illegal content.

1
9

[–] ViolentlyMasticates 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

"I demand privacy online!... except for naked pictures of celebrities, I want those posted publicly"

0
6

[–] codioBunny 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Thank you, so many people are just desperate to see some celebrity ass without knowing the legal repercussions surrounding it.

1
25

[–] 12_Years_A_Toucan 1 points 25 points (+26|-1) ago 

doxbin was banned because doxing is against voat's user agreement, which is a very good thing. https://voat.co/v/announcements/comments/163288/437057

thefappening has arguable legality to it I believe

1
20

[–] TexasComments 1 points 20 points (+21|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The Fappening can cause civil legal trouble with copyright - US law is bizarre when it comes to "Revenge Porn". However, I feel legally they are protected from civil actions in a foreign country since the US Federal Govt. isnt in the business of enforcing celeberty porn bans.

Edit: it came to my attention that The Fappening did contain pictures of underaged girls from the orignial release. This seems to be targeted and coming from what appears to be reddit. I was on the phone with the FBI earlier today handling the /v/tjb issue and I will forward some of the information regarding planting of CP to them as well.

1
14

[–] Pinyaka 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

Why were you on the phone with the FBI?

1
5

[–] Azriel777 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

So, what about removing the posts of the underage girls instead of banning the while sub? On a side note, there should be a public log listing what was removed/banned and why.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 15 points (+17|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
6

[–] Kingmaker [S] 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago  (edited ago)

When I said "I personally think", I meant I personally think that banning those subverses was justified because it was a fact hosted illegal content. I didn't mean that it was my opinion that they hosted illegal content; they did.

I edited my first post to make the wording less ambiguous.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
3

[–] FiftyShadesOfBlack 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Things aren't always cut and dry legally.

Different courts often reach different conclusions.

5
102

[–] whiteguy88 5 points 102 points (+107|-5) ago 

Yes. Like I already said in another thread, those subverses were being used by people from SRS to distribute child porn in order to take down voat.

0
72

[–] big_fat_dangus 0 points 72 points (+72|-0) ago  (edited ago)

used by people from SRS

This is a great point that isn't mentioned often enough- don't underestimate how far sjw's will go in a false flag attempt.

1
21

[–] tokinup 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago 

This is a great point that isn't mentioned often enough- don't underestimate how far sjw's will go in a false flag attempt.

Problem is this can never be proven, and has little utility for us outside of propagandising.

Even if they did flood those subs -- SRS weren't the ones responsible for removing the illegal content on Voat.

3
11

[–] Stoic [M] 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago  (edited ago)

There are two things that falsify the claim that SRS was behind it:

1) The subverse TrueJailbait was a month old and much of the content was 20 days old. That would mean SRS had to have posted stuff before the fattening, which is extremely unlikely.

2) There were about 300 people on the subverse when I was there (to make a post about it) as well which would be a very high amount of people from SRS being there, waiting for someone to come check out the legality of the sub with the intent to make a post about it, saying that it should be banned.

0
3

[–] jackofdiamonds 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

As much as you may want to pin this on false flags, also don't underestimate how opportunistic actual creeps are when they find a platform that will potentially cater to them. It's naive to imagine that there aren't any bad people licking their chops at the freedom Voat provides. Banning illegal content is the right move.

0
3

[–] feistylemur 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

They actually did that to 8chan as well. Dan something or other went and posted a bunch of kiddie porn on the site to prove there was kiddie porn there.

0
7

[–] CathyTheGreatsHorse 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Seems like a good time for an IP ban of the users doing that.

1
6

[–] abear 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

IP banning is worthless

0
6

[–] greiton 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

my favorite was all the people who when you mentioned yes it was illegal, went on to defend having illegal content (that they personally dont like) in favor of blind free speech.

for the record free speech does not equal do what you want.

0
5

[–] luckypunk 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

used by people from SRS to distribute child porn in order to take down voat.

If that's true, they will now start targeting other subverses, because now they know that it works and they can destroy voat this way.

0
6

[–] whiteguy88 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I wouldn't be surprised if they started targeting other subverses or just started creating more and more subverses with child porn. However, I think both Atko and the subverse mods can work together to keep the child porn away.

Anyways, I think that what they will actually do now is create accounts in order to complain about how voat is censoring stuff and that we should just stay on reddit.

1
67

[–] SourPatchWatermelon 1 points 67 points (+68|-1) ago  (edited ago)

ITT: While Voat is a young, understaffed, fragile entity, banning the subs is the right decision. Until Voat can defend itself, its users, and its content, we need to back up and build up our fortifications. That way, when the time comes to reinstate the subs, if that decision is made, it can be defended adequately against the legal titans of the world.

Edit to add: Also, the banning is different now. When Reddit made the choice to ban those subs, they had the large organization behind their site to resist the legal claims if they tried. Right now we've got two unpaid, young, relatively inexperienced (sorry guys, love you, just being real here) people up against some seriously sharky lawyers. The situation is miles different, even though the outcome is the same.

3
16

[–] explorevoat 3 points 16 points (+19|-3) ago 

They won't come back. If someone dangles millions of euros in front of the admins in a few years they will take it and make Ellen Pao CEO. Its human nature to sell out and everyone has a price.

2
13

[–] SourPatchWatermelon 2 points 13 points (+15|-2) ago 

You don't know that for sure. It seems that the Voat team is more dedicated to their ideals. Besides, we gotta give them a chance. Once they screw up, we can bail on them, but as far as I've seen, that screw up hasn't happened.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Subvert-Thoughts 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

4Chan didn't sell out to the Ellen Pao extent. That site has some serious traffic.

However, that is the only example I can think of at this time.

11
41

[–] Bru 11 points 41 points (+52|-11) ago  (edited ago)

Absolutely not. Because this is only the start. Tomorrow something else will become suddenly illegal. Next week something suddenly become too uncomfortable for Atko himself. This is where the slippery slope starts and it ends in hell of censorship, "protection" of users and making this site "a better place for everyone". I hope I don't have to remind you that the exactly same things in the same order happened on reddit and also why most of you are here right now; and reading this comment.

2
18

[–] Sire 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Relax man, right now it's a temporary measure. As someone else statet: "While Voat is a young, understaffed, fragile entity, banning the subs is the right decision. Until Voat can defend itself, its users, and its content, we need to back up and build up our fortifications. That way, when the time comes to reinstate the subs, if that decision is made, it can be defended adequately against the legal titans of the world. "

1
4

[–] Attis 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Is the someone else just a regular user?

4
3

[–] geekygirl23 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

Why are you guys so persistent on muddying the conversation? Things don't suddenly become illegal, we've had hundreds of years to decide what is and isn't. One thing every civilized country agrees on is that even with free speech protections kiddie stuff isn't protected. This isn't a new idea, it isn't some slight against anyone and it's ridiculous to make the wide sweeping claims you have based on that.

What do you suggest exactly btw? How many should go to jail so some assholes can post pics of kids all day? Isn't there somewhere else that can be done already anyhow?

1
3

[–] Genesys_Angel 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Do you REALLY think there is any type of consensus on what is legal and what is not? Look, even if you are referring explicitly to a legal framework determining legality of something, this most likely only applies to your country (and if you are from the US, then apparently this changes by Province/State as well).

Sure, I think most of us would heartily agree on the kiddie porn sentiment. That's one extreme case though and while it is ALMOST globally agreed upon, I can show you places where this is not the case.

The bottom line is this: censorship can happen for many reasons; terrorism, threat to freedoms (whatever the hell that is), protection of perceived cultural traditions (marriage, veils, etc) - the list is ENDLESS. What is important is that if you institute censorship from the top down, you take away a community's ability to self-regulate. And once that happens, the community no longer exists as a self-governing entity, and instead becomes merely a serfdom in thrall, existing at the whim of those, apparently like yourself, who would dictate what is acceptable, and what is not.

Use it, lose it. All said, this lasted ... what? A week? So much for that, account delete. Better the demon I know.

1
0

[–] ohnoesmikey 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I wish I could upvoat geekygirl23's comment more. Why are we even seriously discussing this anymore? The bottom line is if you are crying tears in your beer over the decision by the owner of this site, then find another place that is more tolerant of the sexualization of minors. It's pretty simple. No one has to be here. No one is forcing you to be part of voat. Simply put... Don't like it? Leave.

[–] [deleted] 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] ohnoesmikey 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

ermagerd, muh free speech! Get the pitchforks and torches! If you say people are white knights because they're against the sexualization of minors in images and video being posted here, then that same logic dictates that because you want it here, you are a pedosmile. See how incredibly flawed your logic is?

1
0

[–] makkawaffel 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Yeah man, those child porn subreddits sure were the bastion of internet freedom. Get a grip.