[–] [deleted] 6 points 153 points (+159|-6) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

2
33

[–] 7584144 [S] 2 points 33 points (+35|-2) ago 

Great point

2
15

[–] 7585326 2 points 15 points (+17|-2) ago 

Just make it so raising the ccp limit of a sub limits up and downvoting. You need "x" ccp to VOTE in that sub (up or down).

2
10

[–] 7589029 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

How about giving people the ability to fully block the people spamming them. People like amalek and spartacus upvote so they can shitpost at will. You are moving towards involving the community more and removing mod influence so embrace it and give people that power. Then all you need is janitors to come along and remove the rest later. Yea some people dont like the block button because they mistakenly think most will use it to hide dissenting views but its more about giving people content control. Maybe even investors would like that too.

11
-7

27
-22

6
1

[–] 7597255 6 points 1 points (+7|-6) ago 

How about actually having freedom of expression and letting people fucking vote on something instead of being a marxist orwellian piece of shit and trying to force only specific dialectic to ever be posted?

2
3

[–] 7601774 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Because that is anarchy. That is /b/ . Honestly, good conversation can come out of it, but /b/ is much like 1M monkeys on 1M keyboards ... eventually you'll get a Shakespearean Sonnet out of it, but it's going to take a while.

6
1

[–] 7590291 6 points 1 points (+7|-6) ago 

0
0

[–] 7787969 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

What's a CCP farm?

5
84

[–] 7584437 5 points 84 points (+89|-5) ago 

My worries are that the doxing and minors section will be used to shut down /v/pizzagate and (more likely) the other pizzasgates. Reddit has already used those two to do that anything posted about Alefantis or anyone else (allegedly) involved is "doxing" and any photos are "sexualized content". I think that there has to be some explicit divider between "this guy sucks, here's his phone number" and "here's something I think is newsworthy, including that this person owns this business at this location" situations. (I also think the sexualized content thing is mind boggling. "There aren't any pedos here, but you can't post the photos that they've posted because they sexualize children." Wha?)

I'm down with the voting on rules and mods thing if we can finally do something about the vote farming / botting.

1
28

[–] 7586669 1 points 28 points (+29|-1) ago 

Voat strictly prohibits all doxing (posting of personally identifiable information) of a Voat user

The Doxxing rule only applies to other voaters. Not to politician's associates. You'd only get in trouble if you said @ILoveKids is John Podesta and here is his phone number. Just posting Podesta's number wouldn't break the rules.

7
19

[–] 7587602 7 points 19 points (+26|-7) ago 

I don't think it should be restricted to voat. We all know what doxxing is, divulging the IRL data of internet characters. IDK how to put it in words, but we should not reveal the identity and personal data of people who didn't provide said data.

"Hey guys, Hillary's committee's phone is xxxxxxx" is OK.

"Hey guys, Buckethead is John Doe, and he lives at xxxx" is not OK, unless he published this info himself.

"Hey guys, reddit user pliftploft is Jane McFeebles, phone xxxxx" is not OK.

"Hey guys, tumblerina UnicornsAreReal is Barbie Blunt, you know what to do" is not OK.

My point is RESPECT PRIVACY.

[–] [deleted] 4 points 15 points (+19|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

3
2

[–] 7586913 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

A damn slippery slope. It was the start for reddit.

0
10

[–] 7587447 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

He did stated that the rules are to protect voat users, and not people outside of voat.

0
6

[–] 7589220 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

So long as it's only to protect other voaters, this rule is entirely fair and I will back it 100%.

2
6

[–] 7585307 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

public figures are generally exempted from privacy laws. that's where the line should be drawn, not investigations. info that people (anybody) willing post to the internet (e.g social media posts) is also generally exempt from privacy laws.

1
6

[–] 7587001 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago  (edited ago)

What is a public figure? A large number of people that might rightly end up part of community investigation may not be a public figure in most people's book.

And the, "public information posted by them" exception is essentially what doxing is. On one hand the public figures rule would be too strict, and the social media rule would be under strict to the point of making the rule moot and applied selectively.

It's just easier to forget any doxing rule and say we're allowed to discuss people on the internet. Which is pretty fucking reasonable. Also literally censorship in by pretty much the most obvious definition.

7
79

[–] 7584900 7 points 79 points (+86|-7) ago 

I just want to point out that the last rule is how Reddit's downfall began. The minute you start in on limiting legal activities it's all downhill. There's nothing wrong with banning CP, but as soon as you start trying to police what is "sexualizing" the beginning of the end is here.

4
51

[–] 7585308 4 points 51 points (+55|-4) ago 

Yup... "Jailbait" subs with legal pictures got banned first on Reddit and it was downhill from there. Continued with drawings, then creepshoots then fatpeoplehate, coontown and at the end there was a site wide censorship of wrong opinions.

0
26

[–] 7589693 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

Absolutely this. subs on reddit with legal content such as xsmall and xxxsmall got banned because people associated young looking or thin women with children, even though the mods there were very diligent in removing any questionable content. It wasn't even jailbait type stuff being posted, it was legally published porn with of age women that looked young. The moral police got to decide it was wrong because they associated those women with children because of their looks.

2
8

[–] 7588611 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

This is about right and the issue was forced by somethingawful goons disguised as shitredditsays. I think this latest voat debacle involving whitesomustberacist smells a lot like outside interference

18
-9

4
43

[–] 7584966 4 points 43 points (+47|-4) ago  (edited ago)

And what's the point really in blocking that but allowing shit like niggers, fat people hate, and other hate subs. If it is legal (e.g. non-nude under 18, but socially undesirable) then doesn't banning it go against the free speech of voat? Isn't it implicitly condemning one (jailbait) while approving of another (hate speech)? Its an interesting insight into what the two admins feel is OK and is not OK.

4
30

[–] 7585012 4 points 30 points (+34|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Exactly. The point of free speech is that even objectionable speech is allowed. As soon as the decision is made that there will be a moral standard applied to what is and isn't allowed, it all goes to shit within a couple of years because ... surprise ... everyone has a different idea of what is moral and what isn't. Guaranteed.

4
4

[–] 7589377 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago  (edited ago)

The flip side of posts containing jailbait type pictures is that the subs where these characters hang out become a place for them to meet each other, and then send the explicit/illegal stuff through private messages. I'm not sure what should, or even could be done about that, but I don't like the idea that this stuff is traveling through Voat, even in PMs.

3
0

[–] 7608279 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

We should stop allowing niggers.

1
23

[–] 7587969 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

This. We're trying to keep our users out of jail, not pander to feelings. Restricting something because you don't like it is deplorable at best.

And get this, it goes directly against Voat's freedom of speech policy. It goes against any freedom of speech policy actually.

2
2

[–] 7589278 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

To be fair to the proposed rule, though, sexualized pictures of dressed children can still be ruled CP when they fail the Miller Test.

4
7

[–] 7587097 4 points 7 points (+11|-4) ago 

It is troubling that this comment is like 10th.

0
0

[–] 7587403 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Why?

3
38

[–] 7584013 3 points 38 points (+41|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Based admins

Anyway, I'd like to hear the voat community on spammers. People who make literally thousands of accounts and flood out a subverse with the same post. It's getting old and it's not fair to anyone who uses a single account.

Not saying that this should be a site wide rule, but I would like to see individual subverses adopt a clause against this type of shit posting

1
23

[–] 7584111 [S] 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

@Cynabuns has been pushing for a more clearly defined policy on this and I agree, something needs to be done.

2
9

[–] 7585394 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

I think a report button that includes reason spam/CP/dox and automatically hides the content for review would work. If the review finds the content to be OK, then escalating bans of the reporting account.

Apply a minimum CCP rule so it can't just be constant new accounts reporting things.

1
5

[–] 7585709 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Spamming is pretty well defined. Spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send an unsolicited message, especially advertising, as well as sending messages repeatedly on the same site . Seems you guys are only worried about the advertising portion though, suffering the repeated messages my self I would like to have them deleted to unclog threads if nothing else.

2
3

[–] 7589060 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Allow users to block others instead of waiting for the janitors to wake up. That way each user can define their own spam.

3
0

[–] 7588697 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

You mean @She.

1
8

[–] 7584872 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Yeah, fuck that /u/Voatisforniggers retard. 0 value spamming idiot.

2
-1

[–] 7590347 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

I considered him a joke account. Needs tweaking though.

13
37

[–] 7584050 13 points 37 points (+50|-13) ago 

Sexualized Content of Minors *

Should only concern real people, not drawings. Maybe common sense, maybe not.

2
23

[–] 7586043 2 points 23 points (+25|-2) ago  (edited ago)

I agree. The anti-child porn laws are to protect and prevent exploitation of REAL children. Drawings and cartoons means NO REAL children were ever harmed in the making or enjoyment of them. Even if there is cartoon-depicted sex, it's still not real.

And besides, I thought that's what the "Block" button was for, so people don't ever have to see it. If it doesn't affect you, don't worry about it. It's similar to the gay marriage thing, how will two same-sex people getting married negatively impact your life? It doesn't. So just let gay people get married, legalize marijuana, and leave our cartoon drawings alone.

3
-2

[–] 7606672 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

Go to /b/ if you want kiddie fucking cartoons and leave voat as sane discussion board.

12
-9

15
-12

[–] [deleted] 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
16

[–] 7584351 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Why would anyone go to Canada, eh?

0
8

[–] 7584577 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Encrypt → Cloud (preferably under your control) → Wipe → Move → Download → Decrypt.

0
5

[–] 7588379 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Please! There's so little places for these communities now :c

2
3

[–] 7584085 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

There are apperntly legal restrictions in some areas like Utah which make them legal count as the same thing.

1
9

[–] 7584224 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

In some places the law is written in a way that makes no distinction, probably because no one has drawings in mind when writing this, but as far as I know this gets rectified whenever challenged.

19
34

[–] 7584099 19 points 34 points (+53|-19) ago 

Pornographic images of minors are illegal, or at best in a grey area

Nude images of minors is a grey area, porn is illegal.

2
19

[–] 7585325 2 points 19 points (+21|-2) ago 

Nude images of minors is not porn or illegal. Nude images of minors engaged in a sexually explicit situation IS illegal. A pic of your nudist family at a nudist beach is not porn. A pic of... I'm not going there. You get the idea.

I personally do not condone of either. Just pointing out the law.

8
-2

[–] 7588827 8 points -2 points (+6|-8) ago 

You're pointing out the law in your country. Mine is much more strict.

I don't wanna get v& just because your country's laws allow degeneracy.

18
14

[–] 7584561 18 points 14 points (+32|-18) ago 

It is still sexualizing children which should not be aloud in any shape or form. If any general area of the genitals are shown it should be banned.

2
13

[–] 7585986 2 points 13 points (+15|-2) ago 

Sexualizing sure, but posting a picture of my daughter in a Halloween outfit isn't. Seems unfair to ban posting pictures of kids entirely, but there's certainly something that needs defined there.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 10 points (+15|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

3
10

[–] 7584623 3 points 10 points (+13|-3) ago 

Yes, I would agree, at least as far as VOAT is concerned.

0
6

[–] 7584911 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

You mean covered or uncovered, or both?

0
8

[–] 7586665 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Exactly. Take into account nude beaches and nudist colonies. Families go there together and family photos are taken. There are sometimes naked children in the photos just like everyone else in the photo is naked. This is not pornography because the focus of the photo is not explicitly on the private areas of the child. This is also why nudist colonies go to great lengths to know who tries to become a member before being allowed inside. If photos at a nudist colony were cp they wouldn't be listed on search engines.

4
-4

7
4

[–] 7584705 7 points 4 points (+11|-7) ago  (edited ago)

Nude images of minors are a "gray area" in parts of Europe, until Sharia fully takes over, but nude pictures of minors in the United States are illegal.

0
15

[–] 7585405 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago  (edited ago)

lies, pretty baby the movie is quite legal in the US. nudity is legal, nudity in lascivious poses or that is centered on the genitals is illegal in the US. lascivious poses are illegal regardless of clothing, and images centered on the genitals when the clothing is sheer is also illegal.

that is beside the point. legal pictures should be allowed. i am fine with no nudity, but even facebook allowed the napalm girl in vietnam to be posted after the public backlash, even when she is clearly nude.

4
6

[–] 7584785 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago 

No they are not. There are many nudist website with such pics.

1
-1

[–] 7586745 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Great point. Unless you want to spin off different versions of Voat for different countries, Voat has to adhere to the strictest standard or risk being banned.

12
-10

4
29

[–] 7584869 4 points 29 points (+33|-4) ago  (edited ago)

"Sexualized content of minors".

As long nipples or genitals are NOT shown, we should let them stay. That's for REAL children and teenagers. It's a bit creepy but inoffensive. The racists are technically inoffensive too but you're gonna ban them too? I doubt you will.

If you ban /v/lolicon, I swear by God, Zeus, and anything else mankind ever worshipped, you're not gonna be any different than the reddit administrators. I will delete everything that belongs to me. There's no point in staying here if you also lack the capacity of differentiating reality from fiction like them.

And I will hate you for making me waste such a amount of time in this site. There's nothing I hate more than people who make me waste my time.

1
8

[–] 7585592 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

And how do you define something is sexualized? By the intent of the creator or how it is used?

Let's create a sub /v/PrettyGirlsInAds ... and post images of pretty girls in advertisements (toy commercials, school supplies, modeling clothing, old JC Penny catalogs Jr Miss underwear section). I mean, its not sexualizing anything, is it? These are just advertisements that feature young girls under the age of 18. Completely legal and innocent. So so so very innocent.

0
7

[–] 7585743 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It seems innocent. Looking at dressed girls was never illegal.

1
1

[–] 7585617 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

don't delete, change course and bring the real ship wreck that was allowed to stay. v/EfficientKilling i will bring the fire. instead of promoting autonomy of people to make choices about their bodies, i will embrace the tyranny in the way that rulers fear most. i will teach people how to kill in a very efficient manner. instead of posting lolis post acid/base reactions, post maps showing building entrances and exits, post directions on how to shape charges, etc.

lolis are downright harmless compared to some of the free speech out there.

13
-11

2
27

[–] 7585427 2 points 27 points (+29|-2) ago 

Sexualized Content of Minors

There needs to be a strict definition of what constitutes sexualized material. You already mixed up the terms "sexualized" and "pornographic." A minor posing seductively in yoga pants would generally be considered to be sexualized content. It's also not illegal.

I personally don't think Voat should be morality police, and should permit any legal content. We have the block button if we happen to not like that type of content. Going above and beyond the legal requirements is unnecessary on a free speech website.

2
15

[–] 7586155 2 points 15 points (+17|-2) ago  (edited ago)

according to US law, sexual means involved in a sexual act. like a girl in clothes giving a blowjob. that's illegal. a lot of people confuse it and think it means a girl looking sexy. that's not illegal. if she's just standing there in skimpy clothes smiling, that's legal.

it's unclear what they are referring to and i agree it needs to be more clearly defined.

0
7

[–] 7587278 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It's not clear that they were using definitions based in US law though.

load more comments ▼ (171 remaining)