0
46

[–] Superking 0 points 46 points (+46|-0) ago 

This is seriously huge for the site. It might not be the best press, but it will definitely draw people in.

The thing that bothers me about articles like this is that they don't ever examine or explain what is really meant by "social justice" or "SJW". To the average reader, without context, "social justice" sound like something only bigots could be against and "SJW" sounds like something everyone should be. They don't understand that those terms are used ironically or that "social justice" is essentially being used as a platform for attack and hatred against certain races, sexes, and genders.

1
17

[–] imhereforfruits 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

8chan snowballed as hard as it did because it kept getting slam pieces like this in the news

Looks like voat is going the same way.

1
10

[–] mintbanana 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

Its a conspiracy, atko is washington post.

0
1

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

Yeah and I actually discovered Voat thanks to h8chan, I still frequent reddit but I like more voat, let's see where the ride takes us

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
7

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

Reminds me of gamergate hit pieces. She parrotted the same tired old lines they used against 8chan, like the child porn false flag attack. She also casually strawmanned reddit critics as harassers and misogynists seeking absolute free speech.

Deja vu much?

0
3

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

Dear god...

0
4

[–] inquisitor_quixos 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It's the Washington Post. They'll mention those words as little as possible to steer the discussion away from that, and towards the "misogyny" on Reddit.

0
2

[–] GimmeTheUsual 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Every time I see "SJW" It makes me think of an internal pronounciation like "EssJaw" or something. I don't know, sometimes I'm drunk. First thought I had on that. My only stance on the thing is I'm tired of the self-righteousness that most of them exude. Have a position on something, sure, everyone has one, but they seem to take it so far that even a mild-mannered person wants to throttle them when they're done hyperventilating about something.

Hey, maybe its just me, but I can't stand 'em anymore.

0
4

[–] mos6502 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm convinced the SJW movement is one of the new tactics that was developed and is being used effectively since Snowden released the old playbook.

1
26

[–] mintbanana 1 points 26 points (+27|-1) ago 

Brace yourself @Atko.

The internet is coming.

0
16

[–] imhereforfruits 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

that feel when we can't address atko by typing @ko

0
5

[–] voat4sale 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Seems like a prime opportunity for name grabbing username 'ko'

1
-1

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

2
-2

[–] Blight 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

or @ least @@klo

0
24

[–] hrkristian 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Voat is already struggling under the load of Reddit's final Hug of Death, here's hoping they can keep up. *

As for the article... Meh.
She basically shrugged off any censorship issue with "it's just conspiracy nuts" which is some real rage inducing material. That means she's either got an agenda, or she's too damn lazy to spend 5 minutes verifying it.

Whether or not it's an overarching conspiracy at Reddit or just a select group of mods being dicks, it's still a systemic problem given how often it happens and how many mods are doing it.

*Edit: I should probably add that I only meant the servers get noticeably bogged down when Voat gets mentioned elsewhere, and I've only experienced it twice so far at US peak hours.

0
9

[–] Aa 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

That means she's either got an agenda

She's the same person who has written like 60 articles about GG, and how they're all MRA women-beating misogynist harassers.

0
4

[–] Blight 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

the better, they said, to document the anti-misogyny, anti-racism, pro-censorship conspiracy taking over Reddit.

I could smell the implications oozing from the phrasing, as if to suggest to the reader that this place was pro-misogyny and pro-racism, for the doubleplus bad crime of being anti-censorship.

0
3

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

But she writes "dick" as "d**k!" How can you possibly not trust her?

0
7

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

How is it struggling? I haven't had any issues since the initial hug and the expected downtime associated with that. They've been doing a great job keeping up.

0
8

[–] razuliserm 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Agreed. Good job @Atko & co.

0
2

[–] smokeybehr 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Why would she want to verify anything? If she were to do that, she's find that her little house of cards would collapse under the weight of the truth.

0
1

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

That means she's either got an agenda, or she's too damn lazy to spend 5 minutes verifying it.

Conspiracies are kind of a gray area to cover in journalism, so I can sort of understand why she would do that, but then again with that defense she shouldn't have done this article.

0
24

[–] cthulhuandyou 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

If this isn’t enough free speech, what is?

This just in: Caitlin Dewey hates America.

2
23

[–] I_Plea_The_FiF 2 points 23 points (+25|-2) ago  (edited ago)

ive had just about enough of Caitlin "the Card Carrying Commy" Dewey and her hatred of free speech and american ideals like extra extra meat on a meat lovers pizza

ps: i only need 3 more comment contribution points then im making it rain upvotes on errrraaabody

1
9

[–] Konstamokh 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

Apparently communist is still an insult for some Americans. What a progressive time to live in.

0
14

[–] analpumping 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

I'm old and shit. I realize that some people here may not be. Here's a story that might have occurred before some of you were old enough to be aware of it.

So, back in 2000 George Bush was running for president of the United States. The Internet was still a relatively new thing to a lot of people, but Bush's team realized that it could play a role in the election. To that end that set up a web page for Bush, but in addition to registering georgewbush.com they also registered a number of other domains like bushsucks.com and bushblows.com, presumably to prevent other less Bush-friendly parties from getting ahold of them. Unfortunately, they neglected to grab gwbush.com, which was promptly snatched up by a man who clearly wasn't Bush's biggest fan. This led to a strange situation where bushsucks.com took you to the official web site, while gwbush.com took you to a clearly satirical website mocking pretty much everything about Bush.

As one might expect, Bush wasn't too happy about this. He sued the man who registered gwbush.com. When asked how such an action jived with the first amendment rights of the man he was suing, he famously quipped "There ought to be limits to freedom"

We on the left were disgusted. The idea that someone who had a realistic chance at becoming president of the United fucking States would actually say that there ought to be limits to freedom, let alone that those limits should prevent criticizing a politician, was utterly horrifying. We mockingly quoted him, adding nothing with the understanding that his words alone were damning enough; as if to say "this is what this psychopath actually believes."

And now, less than a decade and a half later, I see people on the left - where I still stand - insisting that Bush had it right all along. Somehow we lost track of our values, somehow we went so horribly astray that we forgot that fighting against the principles of free speech - even when the speech is distasteful, even when the organization clamping down on it is not governmental - is fucking evil.

And I wonder, what the fuck happened to my side.

0
6

[–] cthulhuandyou 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I think the issue is that it was a "side" to begin with. There's a lot of this side versus that side, and each side thinks they have to be better than the other side, so if one side does something the other will pretty much automatically do the opposite and say it's better. This leads to things like "They're using free speech to be assholes, so obviously free speech is a bad idea".

0
2

[–] Vercingetorix 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm right with you, buddy. We went from Selma to Guantanamo in my lifetime, and Obama -- who, I'm sorry to say, I voted for -- has one of the worst records when it comes to attacking our freedoms.

0
3

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

Wow, this woman has lost it.

0
23

[–] IAmYourDad 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

Reddit, the long-time haven of weirdos, perverts and miscreants the Internet over, has been, from its beginning, the mainstream bulwark for free speech online.

Nope, not bias at all.

0
19

[–] lawofchaos 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

It seems to me that the author of that article doesn't have a clue what she is talking about. She doesn't strike me as someone who would use Reddit or Voat but somehow found this one tiny piece of the puzzle and ran with it. In general, she also gives off a very anti Reddit/Voat vibe.

0
7

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

weird that she thinks reddit is some backwater drug deal kind of place.

0
18

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

She said her favorite sub is /r/aww. She's a fucking SJW carebear. It's a hit piece. You're not a racist are you? How long have you hated women? When was the last time you beat your wife? That's exactly what this was. If you're standing up for free speech then you obviously must be a racist wife beating pedo. Author is a yellow journalist at best.

1
1

[–] mintbanana 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Shes probably getting confused with redchan.

0
14

[–] Konstamokh 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I actually like voat not only because of the anti-censorship idea, but because reddit is terrible and noone is trying to improve it.

At least here the admins listen to what is needed and try to implement it. The fact that RES existed shows how little they cared about their site.

0
3

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

I'm curious. What exactly differs from reddit's structure to make it anti-censorship? From what I've understood moderators are opportunistically self-selected in the same way. As in, first to create the sub wins.

0
2

[–] Konstamokh 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There was, for example, a discussion about allowing people to mod only one sub or, at least, let them only mod one popular sub. I noticed on reddit that many abusive mods would spread out on several subs, which was really terrible. The whole "SFWPorn" network was, indeed a network of SJW mods who liked to abuse their power.

If you want to form this site post to /v/ideasforvoat and start a discussion. It's important to find a solution for the controversial topics, before people forget about them.

0
1

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

The site admin isn't SJW and his girlfriend isn't either. I'm guessing if @Atko gets word of a cabal against his site he will step in unlike Reddit is doing with their situation. Coupled with the fact that in this state the whole userbase of Voat is against censorship, anyone trying to censor will be destroyed by the community.

And of course being a superuser is now harder because you can only mod 10 subs sitewide, even the creator of the pix network isn't able to mod all his own subs.

0
12

[–] I_Plea_The_FiF 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

this is a very interesting article, and it feels neat to be part of the so called "exodus" and then it makes it into the washingtonpost. how ever i wish they would focus more on sensorship of r/news and r/technology yesterday about the NSA article. i find that far more egregious than the SRS crowd.

1
8

[–] Hoooooooar 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Reddit has regularly tried to silence anything critical of the US intelligence community, some stories are too big, but if they make it to the front page and are not posted by other large media outlets they usual try to delete them, especially in the big subs. It is quite a joke.

0
3

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

and thats what confuses me, what is the gain from it? i try not to get into the conspiracy stuff however it really begs the question.

1
1

[–] mintbanana 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Its all over /r/news. What they removed was the one with the biggest discussion, a huge fuck you to everyne who posted there.

But the story is ALL OVER THE SUB. Dozens of them. Thats about 5 minutes work for a mod removing them, its not some people power "they cant kill us all" thing, they just removed that one post. Its not a shilluminati takeover broski.

0
5

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

Ding ding ding! This is exactly the point. Now that the MSM and its corporate-elite friends have tamed Reddit, they want people to stay at Reddit, and not go to Voat, which apparently is already a threat to these elites.

To do so, they focus on bigotry and ignore the fact that only a narrow band of stories are allowed into places like news, technology, science, and or course, politics.

0
2

[–] I_Plea_The_FiF 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

a true tragedy. site once know as a haven for openness, discussion, and free speech falls to the hand of those with the $$$$. sounds kind of like the country i live in.

edit: letter

load more comments ▼ (37 remaining)