0
13

[–] dis_is_my_account 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

This seems to be voat's first real argument. People on one side don't want horrible subs affecting this place and the other side wants free speech for everyone regardless of how bad they are. I can see and respect both sides of the argument. I'm not really quite sure where I stand on this right now anyways.

0
4

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

I'm in the same situation as you. While I hate the fact that we allow subs of questionable content to exist I also think that free speech is extremely important. It's a sticky situation for this site for sure and it'll be interesting to see if any changes are made about it. I think personally the free speech is more important, but perhaps exceptions will have to be made occasionally

0
0

[–] A14 ago 

This nullifies anything about "free speech" you could possibly say.

2
1

[–] taxation_is_slavery 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago 

I can't respect anyone trying to silence me or others, they are the scum that should scuttle back to Reddit and enjoy the fruit of that thought.

1
7

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

Anyone else here like painting those they disagree with as evil subhumans? Isn't this the very sort of cancerous conduct that we try to rise above here?

0
9

[–] 123_456 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Our great leader Atko has a rule in place where you are not allowed to squat. If you squat, other people can request the use of that subverse.

0
2

[–] ArchangelleHanielle 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

What does squat mean exactly?

If I created /v/feminism and filled it with posts about iPhones, does this mean I'm squatting?

What about If I create /v/ELI5 and had it redirect to /v/explainlikeimfive only using CSS, is that squatting?

What about If I created /v/Israel and only allowed posts that bash this country unfairly, is that squatting also?

0
1

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

If I created /v/feminism and filled it with posts about iPhones, does this mean I'm squatting?

No. There is no rule that says the sub name has to match the contents.

What about If I create /v/eli5 and had it redirect to /v/explainlikeimfive only using CSS, is that squatting?

Yes. Because you aren't adding content to the sub.

What about If I created /v/israel and only allowed posts that bash this country unfairly, is that squatting also?

No, same as the first one. Also, being critical of a country is not against any rule that I'm aware of.

0
0

[–] bioemerl ago  (edited ago)

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

"sub areas" belong to their communities, and any use of a "sub area" that logically belongs to a community, or a topic, to be about something else, shouldn't be allowed.

Now, if I took /v/apple, and made it about apple products, that isn't squatting, because apple is a company, and apple can be about said company, that is a name conflict, not a hostile takeover.

5
8

[–] Grumpy_Old_Man 5 points 8 points (+13|-5) ago 

Hey OP, do us all a favor and go the fuck back to reddit.

This is what I was afraid of. voat turning into reddit. It's happening faster then I thought.

2
5

[–] taxation_is_slavery 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Speak for yourself, not everyone likes blinders strapped to their head and their balls cut off. I would say it's you who have wondered off the farm.

1
1

[–] imp 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

That is not nice language.

0
1

[–] sbd01 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

So I just joined a few hours ago- what's the difference between Voat and Reddit (besides from being smaller)? A less circlejerky community?

0
7

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

It is supposed to be very free-speech/anti-censorship focused, at least that's what impression I got when joining

0
6

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

Physically dominating someone should never be an act that someone does in anger. It is childish and destructive. Whether child, man or woman. Violence against anyone is something somebody should only contemplate if they see no other response in the face of violence.

The video you posted was such a time, even though the situation could have been handled without violence. It was your right as a user of the site to post it and have people judge it's contents using the voat system and you shouldn't be banned for it.

1
3

[–] WowAFreeBeer 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I have to throw my two cents into this conversation. It's one thing to have free speech, but it's another to have the APPROPRIATE FORMAT in which to do so. If you want a sub where you cant post videos of people (men, women or otherwise) being beaten, then make your own subverse and post that shit.

This is the same type of argument that could be made when going to a Town Hall Meeting. I wouldnt go there and start playing videos of women being beaten, however if I set up a small party in my house and played those videos it would be fine.

Basically, just make your own damn Subverse, post the shit you want and be happy that you finally got to express your free speech.

4
3

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

1
5

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

So everyone knows, that text is found in the sticky post. The sidebar says:

So this crap doesn't inundate Voat the way it did Reddit. Voat is supposed to be better than that.

1
0

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

So the problem was few small subs who you didnt even find without actually looking for them? KK.

0
0

[–] imp ago 

Not sure what is going on here. Someone has claimed /v/beatingwomen and someone else decides to start /v/beatingwomen2 and stipulate no beating on women content. Oh lordy

0
2

[–] moe 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This is the most boring drama I've
seen yet on this site ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

0
2

[–] Wobble 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If someone has made a subverse called beatingwomen and filled it with pictures of kittens, is there not something wrong with that? Aren't they clearly less interested in building up the subverse and simply more interested in stopping others from doing so?

Isn't it going to start to get confusing if people register things like v/transformers and then declare that it's a subverse for all things ninja turtles?

I'll also add that one of the things that I really hated on reddit was the power that mods wielded; that they could just ignore the wishes of long-standing communities, point the boat in a different direction and crank up the censorship.

Just for the record, beating women is bad, as is beating people in general. Unless it's done as part of a consensual bdsm relationship, that is. However I doubt that those who are squatting would like that (consensual) content either and would seek to have it banned too. This is why I for one am for free-speech whether I personally happen to find what people do with it distasteful, or not.

There are laws, and apparently this site follows those of Switzerland, and that is where the line should be drawn in my opinion (illegal content should be removed, and not content that happens to be against the preferences of particular mods running to win a land grab).

0
1

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

This is the part that interests me. Some folks here are advocating free speech, hands-off administration. Such a hand-off approach would imply that mods can do whatever they want, because to tell mods what they can and can't do is to curtail freedom of expression.

But in the same breath they are saying that mods should not be permitted to own subreddits like /v/beatingwomen2 and use them for whatever they prefer.

So here is the real crux of the issue. A portion of the community is clamoring for control over their community here. They want their beliefs to be enforced. What is the quality of those beliefs? Is this about freedom of expression, or is it about a refusal to take responsibility for the very power being sought?

If you cannot see that a community like /r/beatingwomen would form on /v/beatingwomen if left unchecked, if you cannot recognize that this is bad for voat, if you cannot acknowledge that there is a very real difference between banning communities that advocate and idolize violence and crime and banning communities that do not and that most humans have the capacity to make this distinction with little effort... then it makes sense not to act with the moderation powers being sought in order to unseat the owner of /r/beatingwomen2, etc.

0
1

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

I think that usage of particular namespaces should be somewhat related to their names unless the name is just that (some weird abstract name). So "bakingcakes" - you'd expect cake baking, but "pinkrainbows" could be anything.

If someone grabbed a subverse called "atheism" in the land grab and declared it was explicitly for the discussion and adoration of rubber gloves, would this be a positive step for voat?

Also there's intent. Quite clearly the intent is to prevent the use of the name (it's been explicitly stated).

And yes - as stated, I find the content that would likely end up there distasteful. However:

  • If no laws have been broken, what is the problem?
  • Discussion is not a crime. Thought is not a crime. Incitement and/or manipulation to make violent acts might be where I'd draw the line (but then I think incitement to commit a crime is generally a crime itself, so)
  • Also as stated the difference between beating people (the illegal act) and similar consensual activities in bdsm relationships is in vague terms that of consent. However, many do not care to make the distinction and would be trying to ban that shortly afterwards.

Mods cannot do whatever they want. There are the site's rules and there are laws (the site supposedly operates under Swiss law).

r/spacedicks exists. No one knows why, and I think that 99.9% of people probably find it to be pretty foul, but I'm sure that someone likes it, and as long as it doesn't break any laws then it's fine with me.

0
1

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

I don't see why you should have to add you don't agree with beating women. It's something I'd consider to go without saying. Nobody except the idiots and trolls is going to act like you agree with it.

0
2

[–] Wobble 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Haha - I shouldn't, but I thought it'd be safer preempt some of the more silly responses which I expected to get :P

0
2

[–] smokratez 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Report the sub for having 9001 downvote ccp requirement.

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

[Deleted]

0
4

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

Ok. If it's some reddit sjw trying to have their own private party, I am against that.

0
0

[–] escapefromredditbay ago 

they could still be reported for squatting.

0
0

[–] audiomoddified ago 

you mean their downvote ccp requirement is....OVER 9000?!?!?!

0
1

[–] imp 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Cvp requirement is too damn high. Needs to be something more sensible such as 1337 or 420.

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)