You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

3
11

[–] Crensch 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago 

Spam is an issue and we don't want it overrunning the website. But at the same time you're right, these restrictions have been inhibiting people who have done nothing wrong but share too many unpopular opinions, and it isn't in the spirit of Voat.

The problem is that some of these "unpopular opinions" are actually paid-for opinions.

I know of people with unpopular opinions that don't garner downvotes. I've seen it happen all the time, actually.

The ones with downvotes were rude, or expected everyone to agree with them without supporting their position. Or they were MSM narratives that are very obviously manufactured and being espoused by suspicious usernames.

1
6

[–] 10248263? 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

I don't disagree with any of that, but at the same time we cannot say with certainty that a bunch of people behaving like autists or aggressively and espousing unpopular opinions are necessarily paid shills. Are we not, who possess free speech, strong enough to refute their baseless claims without limiting the number of claims they can make per day? If they spam their paid viewpoints they will get banned for spam; if they manipulate votes so that they can downvote they will get banned for manipulation -- but if they are just commenting as much as any other user and they happen to get downvoted for it, what justification do we really have for restricting their speech? We are stronger than that, and they are weaker than for us to need to restrict them.

0
7

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

I don't disagree with any of that, but at the same time we cannot say with certainty that a bunch of people behaving like autists or aggressively and espousing unpopular opinions are necessarily paid shills.

What we can do currently is force them to jump one single hurdle to continue posting here. A hurdle I posit is extremely trivial to overcome.

Are we not, who possess free speech, strong enough to refute their baseless claims without limiting the number of claims they can make per day?

I think you're missing some of my point here. When 5/6 of the comments are from those paid-for liars, those looking for the truth will stop looking and upvoating, and those writing the truth will conclude that their input is not appreciated.

The truth is strong enough to survive when not drowned out by bullshit. If the lies had to meet some kind of criteria that the truth requires by definition, the truth would always win.

I think we've seen the truth lose plenty of times IRL to a hailstorm of lies, because lies are held to absolutely no standard, and the liars go unpunished.

If they spam their paid viewpoints they will get banned for spam

Is not the definition of spam currently just posting the same words over and over? How would you justify calling it spam when it's really just 12 "users" in cubicles posting their "thoughts" that aren't just copy-pasted?

As it stands, I think it's difficult enough pinpointing these users when the users of the site are working to do so. We seem to be right often enough, though.

but if they are just commenting as much as any other user and they happen to get downvoted for it, what justification do we really have for restricting their speech?

The users downvoated into restrictions didn't get there from simply unpopular opinions. Or if they did, they only posted unpopular opinions, which I posit is simply trolling.

Anyone can get plenty of upvotes here without much effort. Even those heavily downvoted users can make comments with +7 if they set aside their "unpopular" opinions for a single comment. Are we saying that asking them to do that more is too much?

We are stronger than that, and they are weaker than for us to need to restrict them.

The truth is only strong when it's not drowned out by half-truths, lies, and irrelevancies.

All of which would have garnered downvotes, and allowed the users to limit that username.

Imagine a username that goes around and lies on purpose. Every comment. Constantly. In order to make himself seen and heard.

No downvotes can stop him.

Now there's 10 of them.

Or 20. Paid for.

Only some small amount of mods or admins or council members to deal with them. Only nobody can, because they're not spamming.

Every political post, and comment in that post, is now responded to by 20 of these "users".

No hail of downvotes can stop them. 20 clicks of downvotes by five real users to even hide them - if they don't get upvoted a bit by each other.

But maybe I'm missing something. Some puzzle-piece of information that didn't fit.

5
-5

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

paid for

Prove that. I want you to prove every single allegation of this nature to be, without a doubt, completely true.

I can't begin to count the number of times I was accused of being CTR and then ShareBlue simply because I'm not a far-right nutjob and didn't agree with the thread's circlejerk. A bunch of downvoats because I didn't accept the tired narrative pushed by morons parroting an old post on Stormfront.

These unpopular opinions are often fabled to be the work of whatever bullshit bogeyman morons cook up, but I rarely see any evidence supporting that.

0
3

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

Prove that. I want you to prove every single allegation of this nature to be, without a doubt, completely true.

I want you to prove that they're legitimate users. We already know that shareblue and CTR have been here, so your claim will need just as many assumptions as mine.

I can't begin to count the number of times I was accused of being CTR and then ShareBlue simply because I'm not a far-right nutjob and didn't agree with the thread's circlejerk. A bunch of downvoats because I didn't accept the tired narrative pushed by morons parroting an old post on Stormfront.

.

parroting an old post on Stormfront.

If you had been around for the full 2.1 years you've supposedly existed, you'd know that stormfront parrots us. You'd also know that bringing up stormfront as a pejorative here will get you downvoted because it isn't considered an insult, and is absurd.

These unpopular opinions are often fabled to be the work of whatever bullshit bogeyman morons cook up, but I rarely see any evidence supporting that.

When their points match CNN's narrative, which has been proven to be a fake-news outlet of LIES, well... it's not really that big of a leap to conclude that they're likely being paid to post here about it.

2.1 years, 120scp and 2k ccp with profile "I'll lurk on here"

@kevdude if your cabal/designed-subversion narrative is true, this guy is just about right on time to show up as a "poor downvoted legitimate user".

None popped up for 24 hours, but now one finally shows up. I'm not really sure why, because his comments don't appear to be downvoted for their opinions.