You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

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

I really appreciate the well thought-out response. Too bad more of our peers don't seem to care enough to respond in kind.

As I see it, and this is based on my life-long experience with, well, humans, what is a "good analysis" will very wildly from person to person. Often times what someone considers to be a good analysis is actually quite terrible, biased, and propagandistic. I think it would be wrong of me as a mod to say "only good analysis or summary" and then proceed to decide what is good or bad. By what criteria would I even begin to assess which is good and which is bad? If I leave it to the votes, and there is a concerted effort to upvoat the genuinely "bad," would I be obligated to leave it or remove it? Do you see where I'm going with this?

So I default to the obligatory neutral position and instead of saying "this site and this author are good, and these are bad" I say "no blogs and corporate news sites."

The easy example to make is as follows: Most or many voat users browse /v/all. They upvoat the content they like, and downvoat the spam or the content they don't like. It's clear that most of the people strictly using /v/all (because it's just more convenient than visiting individual subs, reading the rules to know what is or isn't on topic, etc) don't appear to take into consideration the context of the sub the link was posted to. Case and point, a Breitbart article having nothing to do with technology beyond being in its own (breitbart.com's) technology section received many more votes and interactions and any other recent link in /v/technology. This is kind of alarming. Not because of that site or any political leaning it does or doesn't have, but because it was flatly not on topic but got much more attention then what was on topic, clearly simply because most voat users just like Breitbart.

0
0

[–] mschenk ago 

So your main concern seems to be about concerted efforts to upvote some external bad stuff. I'm not sure the best counter to that is to ban all external stuff.

I'd say default to trusting the upvotes/downvotes and only remove things if there is solid proof of actual vote tampering. Proactive censorship is so like that other site ;-)

0
0

[–] Genghis_Khan [S] ago  (edited ago)

So your main concern seems to be about concerted efforts to upvote some external bad stuff.

Unfortunately, you misunderstood.

There is no method to obtain solid proof of vote tampering nor is that my concern.

Removing information that is not relevant in a forum is not censorship and is essentially the top function of a moderator. Also, removed content appears in the logs (in the sidebar) and can be reviewed/discussed there, so isn't truly censored anyway, even if that were my intent.

The best way to understand this is to look at the name of the sub then go back as far as you can stand and look at the content that's been posted already.

0
0

[–] DinoRider ago 

A text post written by a user here can be every bit as terrible, biased, and propagandistic as an article someone linked to. Either way, it's going to live or die either by the community votes or a moderator deciding it's off topic.

Like mschenk said, often an article about Reddit covers events better than anything. It's our loss if we exclude them from discussion here.