You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
12

[–] logos_ethos 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Some of those hostile accounts act like community stalkers or people who use Voat to practice their 17 techniques for truth suppression or other things. They are technically not spammers, but their posts share the same lack for mutual dialog and share the same irritation as spam. I do not think such accounts should share the same unrestricted access as honest community users, and the current negative post limit addresses that. If these accounts become more active, then I can see myself and others become less interested in spending time on Voat. That is what they want.

1
2

[–] 10247580? 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Your concerns are legitimate, but you should realize that the current system does little to actually limit these users. They are the ones with the most alts; if they reach restrictions they make another account and keep shilling.

If you care about freedom of speech and not a safe space from shills you will understand that the current system does more to hurt innocent and established users than it does to suppress shilling. Just downvote their nonsense and move on, don't let them chase you off of the website because they annoy you...

0
5

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

There are markets for buying down votes for Reddit and Voat, and Voat is more expensive to buy downvoats for. It does affect their operating costs, and it does deter them to some degree. If you want an objective measurement for how well your shill protection works, just monitor their cost per downvoat after changes have been made for a while.

I value freedom of speech in the classical liberal sense. "Live and let live" and "remove those who won't." People often forget that second part. Both are necessary. If an account goes negative, then that satisfies the "remove those who won't" part. Ignoring that second part means that you are not a liberal with a viable philosophy for a sustainable community (like the modern left). Classical liberal philosophy does not translate to no consequences for community agitators.

The system that we have now is far superior to outright bans and shadow bans. I fear that if we abandon what is working for us right now, we might go down the outright ban or shadow ban road some day, or maybe something else that is worse than what we have right now. So as far as freedom of speech goes, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. We will never have perfect freedom of speech, so lets be willing to settle for good freedom of speech. For politics, those who think that they can bring about a utopia end up bringing about the most misery, suffering, and death. I am not accusing you of that. I am just pointing out that perfect is a horrible goal to shoot for, so we need to be willing to settle for the best that human nature allows for, and no more.

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

[Deleted]