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

I'm all for freedom of speech. But freedom of speech protects against persecution by government entities. It's perfectly fine for freedom of speech to have social consequences from your peers. I don't think anon subs do anything other than protect against these social consequences. Your words can and should have consequences - just not from a large, controlling entity to go after you.

If you want to post garbage, your username should take the hit. Downvotes aren't censorship, they are social consequence. (I'd even be for upping the limit that voat uses to auto-hide downvoted posts) Usernames are already anonymous enough as-is.

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

I'm all for freedom of speech. But freedom of speech protects against persecution by government entities. It's perfectly fine for freedom of speech to have social consequences from your peers. I don't think anon subs do anything other than protect against these social consequences. Your words can and should have consequences - just not from a large, controlling entity to go after you.

If you want to post garbage, your username should take the hit. Downvotes aren't censorship, they are social consequence. (I'd even be for upping the limit that voat uses to auto-hide downvoted posts) Usernames are already anonymous enough as-is.

I can appreciate your position, @thantik, but I disagree. I am not asking to change the user experience, so let me clarify.

I have not (intentionally) clicked on a single anon news article in my entire experience using Voat - both while as a lurker, as well as a registered user. My personal experience is the titles alone led me to question the next immediately identifiable marker (the source). I notice this when I view items while attempting to ensure they aren't ones I've already read before, etc.

Due to their very nature, Anon subs can be put into the same category as NSFW as having no real restraints, while subsequently being areas with an overall less desirable quality of content that someone might wish to open in say, a public setting, around family, or when projecting in a class room (just easy to digest comparisons, not a real argument being made).

When it comes to the "opinion" side of this ask; I do not believe I am alone in immediately blocking any anon sub because by it's very nature it removes the concept of responsibility. If I wanted to visit a location where people express their opinions without reputation that comes from at least some loose form of responsibility (in this case, a simple username with a post history everyone else can read as a source of transparency), then I would be on 4chan or 8chan, instead.

I do not believe this suggestion has an overly burdensome demand on the admin's resources, as a filter (or whatever technical programming identifier) already exists in the settings to block subvoats specifically listed as NSFW due to things like nudity, gore, etc. I have no evidence and would be curious to see the facts, but an educated guess is few people use this existing setting today, and if true then by the very nature of the request it is a reasonable enhancement to Voat.

Feel free to keep browsing things on anon subs. I do not wish to change your default user experience, just be given more granular control for myself in the form of a personalized setting toggle, and as such I have a hard time understanding why you would find this idea disagreeable for reasons of "free speech". If you are going to make an argument based on free speech, at least point out how I would be effecting yours - or your argument begins on very porous grounds.

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

Absolutely fine with your viewpoint, I merely wanted to expound upon it and voice my displeasure with anon subs subverting the very nature of a site the relies on VOATing to determine quality content.

I too, wish I could block anon subs globally on my account. However I think that's a smaller measure than is needed.