You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 21853750? ago 

I see multiple viable technical scenarios that object to your assessment.

0
1

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

Cool, just air balling. What's your take?

0
1

[–] 21853899? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

  1. The very concept that a specific organization would predictably manage Voat in one way means it would be advantageous for an observant subversive with the ability to read all PM's, unmask anon, and see all posts/edits/etc to do the opposite, or anything that is not what you believe they would do - and they have the technical aptitude or capacity to easily create a number of environments to give the appearance of downtime, attacks, etc.
  2. The site does not have to be seized for Putt to lose control. He can, ultimately, object to participate in orders, or even object by failing to maintain any new features and simply giving away the access to keep the lights on. All someone else would need is a few e-mail address passwords and they could hijack everything, assuming Voat is anything more than hosted on a physical machine in Putt's possession, which I do not have any evidence to believe is the case.
  3. It's just as likely this place is weaponized for consensus or additional "low cost" propaganda. I believe the entire Q movement is a brilliant PSYOP to keep the last remaining Citizens capable of doing something about the situation all sitting at home, convinced the Government is going to fix itself and all those massive indictments are just around the corner. "Any day now" is such a laughable line.

The list goes on, and it's long. These are just some of the more obvious nuances I could pull out of my ass with little extrapolation and their validity is still self-evident.