You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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

[–] 7587612 18 points -9 points (+9|-18) ago 

I honestly couldn't care less, this site doesn't need jailbait subs, period.

Marketing alone for the site is a worry when people associate it with that crap

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?