Live data from Hacker News

Voat Is Shutting Down

voat.co

221–230 of 671 posts

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#221
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont know about that... Twitter has a huge problem of leftwing extremism.

Can you provide an example of what you perceive to be "left wing extremism"?

“Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution,” he tweeted. “I'll happily provide video commentary.”[0] - Dick Costolo, former Twitter CEO

[0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/10/01/some-busi...

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#222
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. It was so on-the-nose I wasn't entirely convinced that everything I was reading was authentic. Obviously that type of person exists but some of the conversations seemed performative.

A lot of it probably started out as performative, but later became sincere -- either as users on the site became further radicalized, or as the site became a magnet for users who actually believed the awful things they were saying.

When I first moved to my current home I installed a big wood stove in the basement to help keep the home warm. Over the next few years I learned a lot empirically about how fire works.

One of the more interesting lessons was how important it is to use the radiant heat from a burning piece of wood to build and sustain heat in other pieces of wood. It works a bit like fuel rods in a fission reaction. When you keep the logs separate they will burn, but not vigorously. But if you bring two glowing logs close together, you can see them mutually heat each other and drive up the rate of combustion.

I think something like that happens with these concentrated communities.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I enjoy rude online communities. Sometimes it's nice to go to places where people say what they mean rather than try to be polite and/or politically correct. Pubs and websites are different from each other. I probably wouldn't go to a pub that refused to throw out rude patrons because there would be a relatively high chance of physical violence occurring at such a pub. Online, assuming that my use of a website would…

Don't worry. The places in question do that, too.

Sorry, you were probably replying to a part of my comment that I subsequently edited out. Namely, I originally mentioned that even though I enjoy rude websites, I don't like when rudeness crosses the line into stuff like manipulating schizophrenic people or telling clinically depressed people to kill themselves. You're right, the places in question do that, too. That said, I would hope that there can be places where consensual rudeness can nonetheless be practiced. Not everyone can handle mountain biking, rough sex, or reading about how to make explosives, but other people enjoy those activities without coming to harm.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#224
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All in all, these people think as hard as us that they are right, that they are the better people, that they have the better ideologies. I just can't fathom it. I'm convinced at this point that the only way to think about it is to understand that the IQ average of that group must be pretty low.

EQ, not IQ. So much of right-wing politics is predicated in lacking empathy for others.

Or both in the case of places like The_Donald and voat, there's very little intelligent discussion going on and the enemy is always the "elites". The elites aren't the 1%, they're experts like doctors and people with enough education to move to big cities.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the issue is that the average age of Reddit users plummeted. It was in the high 20s, but I've seen some research that puts it in the high teens these days / early 20s. That has a huge impact on the quality of conversations.

And politics have infected every single discussion. Nowadays it's cool to be partisans, decades ago a teenager talking about politics would be dismissed with a "get a hobby, nerd." It is an absolute disgrace how it's become normal. Or that mine is an unpopular opinion nowadays.

Idk what you define as being cool but here's Tom Morello destroying a guitar in front of a Nazi Lives Don't Matter screen. https://twitter.com/TerranSocialist/status/13409250499944243...

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not that free speech platforms are destined to fail, its anonymity. You're not responsible for your words. That's why these fail. Notice I use my real name here on this website. Not a pseudonym. Whatever I say here, I would say to you in front of your face. Same as I do on Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and the other areas I post. I've always used my real name. I'll always use my real name. We don't require anyo…

"Taking responsibility for what you say" often equals being attacked or ostracized for deviating from the Correct Opinion. Anonymity is often required for freedom of expression. Give a person a mask and he'll tell you the truth, and all that.

> Give a person a mask and he'll tell you the truth

Rather, give a person a mask and they'll tell you whatever will most further their own goals, be it truth or falsehood. If only the complete absence of accountability were sufficient to ensure truth.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#228

Voat was founded as a neutral free-speech platform. After alt-right extremists were booted off reddit, they found a new home there. The site was bombarded by /pol/ chan culture, and after that nobody else of other political persuasions really wanted to join. Kind of like that "paradox of intolerance" meme. Free speech platforms usually end up becoming extremist platforms. I remember going on voat a couple years ago a…

As opposed to Reddit where every subreddit aside from those dedicated to alt-right topics has a left-leaning tinge. Every platform has biases. It's just that Reddit chose to ban a specific group, so it's logical that group alone would dominate alternatives.

Reddit banned demonstrably fabricated extremist content. It just so happens the political party most associated with it continued to eat it up.

/r/conservative is a gated community only for people they agree with. Reddit perfectly allows them to exist in their own created hypocritical bubble, along with lots of other subreddits.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Free speech platforms usually end up being extremist platforms. ...when the popular platforms stop being free speech platforms. Reddit, in its earlier days, was never dominated by the Voat contingent. They were there, but they were far less extreme there than they were on Voat. And then whenever they would post rank inaccuracies, there were clearer-minded people to point out why they were wrong, in the same place w…

Those days ended fast. I saw it happen. On my forum, that very question was asked, and it wasn’t a philosophical debate. It was an operational one - how do we balance free speech ideals vs actual forum evidence. The framework that fits the evidence and the ideals was 1) we want a market place of ideas to function 2) there is content that easily dominates and sidelines all other ideas. 3) there are Maliciously enginee…

> The underlying nexus is that our ideals on free speech do not take into account human wetware bandwidth.

Damn, this is such a good metaphore, I had to think a lot about it.

For my browser [1] I wanted to introduce a fact gathering and linking system, and build it in a way that bias of authors (and publishers) can be guessed when they release a new article.

My theory is that Rationalism will never be anything that can exist, because it is the opposite of human nature (or say, the founding idea of our society).

The underlying issue is that emotions cause a lot of people to get irrational due to them not being able to differ a potentially dangerous situation with a potentially (equally) good one.

I think that most (if not all) of fake news websites were shared because of only a couple of reasons:

1) Humans like to get reinforced in their own perception more than they like to get disagreed with.

2) Articles in these type of publishing mediums appeal to emotions rather than to facts, hence the reason for why they use pictures, videos and other recordings as "evidence" even when they had totally nothing to do with it.

3) Humans are lazy. This is by far the most important point. If it is easy to comply with an emotional statement, and hard to gather evidence to disprove it; the emotional statement will always win.

4) Humans confuse disagreement with punishment. As a kid you get taught that there are negative effects when you disagree with society, or your mum/dad or other authoritarian figures. Rather than to punish kids when they are wrong we should encourage the gathering of evidence, and let them form an argument for both sides.

5) Humans are beings that forget. That is why media for the masses reuses pictures of a situation that happened years ago as "proof" for something clickbaity. Most people won't remember it if it was a situation that had a boring outcome, but they certainly will remember it when it had a negative emotional effect on themselves.

6) Depression is a huge hole where nobody without external support can come out, due to how our thinking nature works. Similar to 5) our brain is wired to remember negative punishments more than positive reinforcements, and that is why we tend to get depressive more likely than we tend to get optimistic...which in turn plays in the cards of fake news because the bad obvious enemy could do some serious bad thing to us.

But yeah, these are just my two cents. Due to my browser I thought a lot about this and came to the conclusion that irrational hate speech is worse an enemy than someone might think on first sight.

[1] https://github.com/tholian-network/stealth

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#230
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge problem, which is the cause of this far more than "free speech" ever was, roots in these platforms optimizing for engagement. And then vacuous controversy maximizes engagement so you're really optimizing for controversy, which is a dumpster fire. But separating the combatants doesn't just stop the algorithmically-promoted unintelligible flame wars. It stops the debate entirely. You lose the ability to even enc…

> roots in these platforms optimizing for engagement. I don't think so. This pattern has been observed, and has been a problem, since well before the modern eyeballs-and-engagement-obsessed era of the internet, and before ads were even present on forums at all. What you're describing makes it worse , but even in its absence there is a certain vocal subset of humanity for whom dominating a discussion is its own reward…

The pattern existed, but it was never such a serious problem that so many people started using it to justify the current level of censorship and excommunication until after "maximize engagement" turned it up to eleven.
Post reply on HN