You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
8

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

The other site made an announcement double downing that they were all about free speech and transparency, but just wanted to filter out some of the "evil". Someone asked them to define, "evil." I'm not sure what the response was or if the question was answered.

0
5

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

There's no response that would be defensible if you're actually all about free speech and transparency. Either you're for those things, or you're not. You can't say, "Yes, free speech except..." The moment you add any arbitrary conditions to it, you are no longer for it. Note: I do not feel that Voat's stance - any legal speech is allowable - is arbitrary.

0
2

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

Well the limpdicks and barren wombs those people call admins are just progressive enough to ignore that logic. They think they can stand for free speech while deliberately limiting the amount of speech allowed. They're basically saying well, we're going to let you speak as long as you stand in this box where nobody can hear you. It's fucking batty.

0
2

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

Oh OK. Geez. No comment would have been way better.

0
0

[–] Throwingtothewolves [S] ago 

They answer was BS and not worth reading or repeating.