15
115

[–] go1dfish 15 points 115 points (+130|-15) ago 

Rule #4 is especially prone to abuse.

I suggest that

@Bashlet @MathGrunt @Slug @Teh_Sauce_Guy @YourBlueIsMyPurple

Should create a new subverse if they want a more strictly moderated science sub, and leave /v/science as as more unrestricted system sub.

5
33

[–] MamaFrankie 5 points 33 points (+38|-5) ago 

I like this idea - it appeals to the complexity theory in my brain. what if we allowed spore-verses, curated subverses who are still connected (through something like the /v/science curated network, like the imaginary art network) to the primary, huge subverse (which can stay it's usually bubbling pit of social chaos)? Or, as another idea, what if a curator user (someone who wants to hand pick certain topics or help in selecting content to filter out certain things) can publish their selections inside certain subverses? So some curator could pick through all the roil and boil of /v/science and then publish a curated feed that could also be followed along with (though possibly in lieu of) /v/science.

just brain storming here. I usually don't follow this kind of stuff, but your comment got me thinking. thanks for that! :)

1
17

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

I think it'd be pretty nice to have "curated" versions of subverses, where mods and approved submitters can mark high-quality content for curation. It's not a newfangled idea or anything, either; the *.moderated groups of Usenet were pretty much this.

5
7

[–] SumerBreeze 5 points 7 points (+12|-5) ago 

Yes - most of the posts in /r/science are pseudoscience bullshit, so it would be incredibly hypocritical if /v/science started censoring material. Do these idiot mods even understand why voat was created?

0
1

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

spore-verses, curated subverses who are still connected (through something like the /v/science curated network

so basically sub-subverses?

0
0

[–] OriginOfMan 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You are all being ridiculous, utterly and embarrassingly so.

How can there be pseudoscience in a quantum universe. Really, have you all lost your minds?

[–] [deleted] 11 points 13 points (+24|-11) ago 

[Deleted]

17
1

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

Yeah, that is. But they do not want, because the diference between pseudoscience and plan magic is the science-like language. That gives snake oil sellers the respectability they seek.

Free speech yes. Say whatever you want wherever you want no. You should not be banned from voat, but from subverses... happy banhammer. Make /v/newscience for you quantum-explain-all shit.

4
-4

11
-10

11
-11

2
6

[–] Clitorally_retarded 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

just call it /v/truescience or something and make sure it refers to an actual published scientific study. i get the concern, though, that we'll get posts by basement bloggers claiming drinking pee with magnets in it cures rabies.

3
4

[–] Broc_Lia 3 points 4 points (+7|-3) ago 

i get the concern, though, that we'll get posts by basement bloggers claiming drinking pee with magnets in it cures rabies.

Even if we do, so what? Just downvote them and they'll be off the front page in no time. Deletions and bans should be reserved for bad faith/off topic/spam.

0
2

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

Change rule #4 to: homeopathy is not allowed.

7
81

[–] TheDude2 7 points 81 points (+88|-7) ago 

I don't know why this BS keeps popping up. If it is a system sub, then you don't get to delete anything but spam. You want something more moderated then build a non-system sub. So easy a caveman can do it.

3
25

[–] jpw42 3 points 25 points (+28|-3) ago 

My thoughts exactly!

0
24

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

Tell that to the people with power, they always seem to think it's unlimited in small doses.

0
2

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

Only they have the clarity of mind to control this power, and use it effectively. Imagine if we had to take care of ourselves? This simply shall not do!

2
2

[–] Castle 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

We need a better system for these pages anyway. SubVOATs and SubReddits are not working. We need a system where users themselves define where something belongs and YOU as a user can subscribe to people you trust. And if trust is lost that person risks being stripped of an audience. Instantly.

0
5

[–] TheDude2 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I wonder if that is what they are planning? It will allow someone like me to allow just about everything while others can trust a user, or group, to weed things out.

0
2

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

Like tumblr?

6
0

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

So if a post that is complete bullshit with lies on science elements gets tons of upvotes that should be allowed to stay up? No. No it shouldn't. This is a science sub. And it should have actual science material.

1
8

[–] TheDude2 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

People could up goat a picture of a cats ass for all I care. But I think most users would just downgoat and move on. (Unless they feel like fucking with the mods)

I see weird shit in /v/news all the time, but I just move along.

0
7

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

I don't understand why they can't provide examples of posts that fit that description.

2
7

[–] 3778102 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

That could be tagged as something like "pseudoscience" or "not peer-reviewed". Deletion would just give people flashbacks to /r/politics and /r/technology .

3
41

[–] Peynus 3 points 41 points (+44|-3) ago 

Gotta say, i was on the supportive camp before. But now I'm against the change. People on v/science will generally be knowledgeable enough to downvoat clickbait/pseudoscience. Even if they're not; free speech,man. Almost lost myself. Maybe allow mods to put a 'pseudoscience warning' tag. Then let users argue it. I love this sub, don't let it die!

6
16

[–] badbear 6 points 16 points (+22|-6) ago 

The pseudoscience tag sounds like a good idea. Shitty science / pseudoscience will likely be downvoated.

1
13

[–] Broc_Lia 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

Why even bother with a tag. Pseudoscience will still be downvoted.

1
3

[–] LMTV 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Assuming somebody isn't paying good money to have it upvoted in the first place

0
7

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

That's basically it. What the fuck is the up/down voting for if we aren't going to use it? Mods should get the fuck out of the way and let the users handle it.

3
5

[–] magnetismen 3 points 5 points (+8|-3) ago 

I think the problem goes both ways. If you don't have content filtering you'll get everything, but that will include shitposts, clickbaits, non-science, or just pure non-sense. If you do have content filtering you get rid of that but you put arbitrary judgement on the posts before the sub is allowed to view it. The discussion is which one you choose. Having the community solving it with downvotes should work, although there will inevitably be non-science posts that will get to the front page - I guess this is stuff you have to live with.

I personally like the definition of pseudoscience from Tim Minchin in his song Storm, although he refers to alternative medicine: "Alternative medicine is medicin that has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."

0
5

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

It's almost like you need some mods who are willing to delete obvious spam, shilling and shitposts but let the users decide on what is science or not. It's not that hard really you'd just have to leave your ego at the door.

5
1

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

The tag is an excellent idea, because I'm pretty sure climate-change denying brigades will show up.

6
41

[–] BRITTEACH 6 points 41 points (+47|-6) ago 

Proposed censorship rules are indeed antithetical to Voat but that won't stop moderators from imposing themselves on any given subverse. Freedom of speech and association viz a vie a subverse is about the only thing Voat has going for it. If free exchange of information is limited Voat won't last.

Everyone seems to like freedom of speech in theory but the minute someone is offended or outraged when it is practiced, the call for walls goes up. Voat has a system in place that enables individual users to block individual subverses from their individual accounts. I have used this service to block what I perceive to be racist or grisly subverses and no one is the wiser. I like that I can always check in to read what people are thinking and feeling on those subverses every once in awhile if for no other reason than that having a so-called world view requires me to be familiar with opposing view points.

A forum where free speech is protected requires a certain level of maturity and a sharp intellect. Sure, there are ideas that offend me, piss me off, and outrage me on Voat, but those ideas should have the right to be expressed and protected. If you do have the courage to argue with someone, you always have the freedom to ignore them if their attacks become personal or you may simply choose not to participate in a subverse that you perceive is not intellectually honest or has a reputation for bullying. In that sense, it is no different from real life where we pick and choose our friends and our reading material based on reputation.

As far as the issue of science vs pseudo science goes, that is something you'll have to distinguish based on your level of knowledge and education. Sometimes how a subverse is labeled can be misleading.

9
11

[–] BigTimStrange 9 points 11 points (+20|-9) ago 

Everyone seems to like freedom of speech in theory but the minute someone is offended or outraged when it is practiced, the call for walls goes up.

But on the other side of that, any and all moderation on Voat turns into a censorship witch hunt.

Honestly the best solution is to take a free market approach: build your own sub and let people decide which one best suites their tastes. However the best solution isn't the easiest solution, which is scream bloody murder about censorship every time someone tries to exercise a modicum of quality standards to their subverse.

1
16

[–] New_years_day 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

Exactly, so they can leave the default sub alone and create their own called /v/no_psedoscience, pretty simple when you put it that way.

And people should scream bloody murder about moderation/censorship after what most of us went through at reddit.

1
6

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

Agreed. Voat seems big enough to accommodate all kinds of subverses and we are free to pick and choose where we want to spend time on this site.

0
0

[–] VillaLopez 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It is not their subverse.

0
10

[–] New_years_day 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

A forum where free speech is protected requires a certain level of maturity and a sharp intellect.

This is key.

8
-7

5
36

[–] 84626433832795028841 5 points 36 points (+41|-5) ago 

Yes moderators are supposed to be glorified janitors removing only absolutely inappropriate or illegal content, the rest can be sorted out by users voating, which is I believe the purpose of the whole endeavor. v/science is not your personal science magazine and the mod team is not the peer-review committee. If you want a community moderated to your subjective liking I suggest you get the fuck out of the default system-created verse, make your own science verse and see if anybody joins you.

2
5

[–] pandabill 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago  (edited ago)

All the trigger-happy moderators who are in favour of this censorship regime should be sent packing immediately. They are only going to destroy voat in the long run. We shouldn't give them the little finger.

0
4

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

They already have an iron grip on this site and will reason that they are too important.

4
18

[–] freddymercury 4 points 18 points (+22|-4) ago 

I am 100 percent against this type of setup for this subverse. This rule is the #1 reason I do not like reddit. There have been many times in my long life, from "Margarine is good for your health" to "gravitational waves discovered by the planck experiment will rule your theory out" where very entrenched scientific consensus has been abolutely 100 percent wrong, and I was banned or punished from discussing these issues on other sites. This type of rule is unacceptable and would have inhibited einstein from getting his theories out.

11
17

[–] walteroloco 11 points 17 points (+28|-11) ago 

The problem comes from this: studies show blah blah blah. People take this sort of statement as fact. It's been shown these types of articles are pure clickbait. This is pseudoscience and needs to be destroyed at all costs!

2
23

[–] degenerate7 2 points 23 points (+25|-2) ago 

Ideally in a science sub the users will be more interested in technical articles actually describing the study instead of the click bait reports that jump to wild conclusions

1
9

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

If clickbait didn't work they wouldn't do it.

1
10

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

But that's 90% of what goes into any science board including those banning pseudoscience. That's the problem, which study says ... will be allowed and which won't when its all bullshit. Studies are in fact science. They are the uncut diamonds of science but they are still shit. If we ban that though there will be no content whatsoever. What's left? Pop science and textbooks. One is even worse and one isn't going to happen.

What we need is a more realistic understanding of what a science board is. This is not a peer reviewed journal. This is people talking on the internet.

These people seem to have inflated and overly narrow ideas on what science is and what this board is and there is no convincing their rhetorical sense of superiority. They just have to go. Just as you need to identify when a marriage won't work we need to identify when a backwards minded moderator has poorly informed "virtuous" ideals that are antithetical to voat. We may think this is reconcilable if we get them to admit they won't censor things but it won't change their ideals or their ideological view of science. This will rear its ugly head again if we don't kick them off and eventually they will win and we will be reddit.

0
5

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

Then why not make a place for "studies" to go, preferably a place where they'll be repeatedly kicked in the balls by statisticians until they're the finest quality uncut diamonds?

0
1

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

There's a difference between scientific and clickbait studies

5
15

[–] DougExeter 5 points 15 points (+20|-5) ago 

I agree. If people want strict censorship rules they can make their own subverse and they can call it /onlyreelscience

17
-15
load more comments ▼ (51 remaining)