You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] 123_456 2 points 35 points (+37|-2) ago  (edited ago)


I've got an idea that could work, but I don't know if you can implement this. Please patent this for our website, so reddit can't use it. Ha-ha.

This is how it goes:

1 - Comments, and submissions have a report spam button. People click that button.

2 - The report goes to the sidebar, or another area of the website, and it asks RANDOM users if it's spam. They can voluntarily click to verify if it's spam. This way the power to judge something isn't in the hands of a few people.

3 - If a user's account gets too many verifications of spam, then they will be banned. However, if they want to, they can appeal, and ask for an un-banning.

4 - Of course what will motivate random users to moderate? Users will get points, and badges for identifying spam.

So, this is almost like the system we have now, except moderation is in the hands of many users. It's not necessarily bullet proof, but it leads us away from certain groups, and a few powerful people ganging up on an individual.


[–] PuttItOut [S] 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

We have the beginning stages of publicly viewable reports here:


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

What do you think about making votes public? We can click on the vote count and see who votes up and who down.


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

admits to censoring users

begs users to help crowd-source 'new and improved censorship'

i am not spam. i proved you're SJW shills that took the site from atif, against his will - - that's why you downvote brigaded me 30,000 points, attacked me 24/7 for 10 months, upvote brigaded harassment, well poisoning and character assassination posts against me to the front page every day for months, thats why you took out ads attacking me, that's why you coded in bots to the API to auto-downvote my posts before they even hit v/all/new so no one would ever see it, that's why you made a chat bot using my comments on voat to practice against, that's why you had to manufacture drama in order to steal the subs i modded that were free to discuss your criminal shilling against voat and your sjw takeover of voat.

i did not hijack comments. i was and am being censored on voat, and voat needed to hear about it - so i spoke up about it. and that's what you couldn't stand. that someone wasn't putting their head down, being silent about your illicit activities against voat, inc.

you can correct the record all you want, adolf puttler.

i know what you are and i know what you've done to voat and what was once the voat community.

as hate speech goes from protected free speech to criminal speech, let me remind you and all the SJWs, antifa, r/ shitredditsays, CTR/shareblue, blm, soros, and the rothschilds.. and you fake justin chastain: i hope you get raped and murdered and it's published on liveleaks.


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

I like the idea of decentralized moderation for simple things like spam verification.


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

Look, I can write a bot that will create a new account every time the spam limit is exceeded and I receive notification that the spams have ceased. There is a very low barrier to overcome this type of system. You're going to have to shadowban these accounts without notification to the user if you want this to work out even in the short term.


[–] 10281467? ago 

The problems with that system become "how do we keep it out of the hands of power-hungry moderators who would use it against anyone they disagree with?" and "how do we make sure that normal users are almost entirely unable to be banned in this way?".

No system is ever going to be 100% perfect for 100% of the cases. Voat is trying to focus on Freedom of Speech (as a direct response to sites like Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook focusing on Censoring "Hate Speech"/Wrongthink), so we're willing to deal with a little more spam and unfriendly behavior if it means that we are more likely to have free and open discussions on any topic we need to have a discussion about. If we try to focus more and more on dealing with the spam, we'll slowly move towards site-wide censorship and start an arms race between the spam-bot creators and our anti-spam software that will only result in either "the site getting overwhelmed with spam via high-quality spambot accounts", "the company going bankrupt after spending all of their money on new anti-spam R&D rather than their main product", or "the company offering ways for advertisers to directly pay the company in order to let the advertisers run shill bots on the site as they pleased".


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

A lot of spam is cut & paste. I think we can do a lot to combat spam simply by factoring in a user's history when a report comes through.


[–] 10281474? ago 

Voat already checks to see if comments you made were literally just "Cut and pasted" into the comment box, particularly if you've done it shortly after a previous comment.