Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Voat Is Shutting Down

voat.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 671 posts

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#291

Post by raldi »

berryjerry wrote: post #266
raldi wrote: post #84

Moderated communities beat unmoderated ones on any metric you can name. Always have, always will. Nobody wants to drink at a pub that won't throw out rude patrons.

This is dead on correct. The problem is online most people don't have to hear what you say, they can just not subscribe or not follow you and never hear a word of what you said. This is why over-moderation on the big tech sites like Reddit, Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook is so frustrating. It goes beyond kicking someone out of the bar to not allowing someone to open a bar. And they get their moderation wrong, and I m…

Not following. You can't make your own subreddit / YT channel / FB group?

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#292

Post by KukiAirani »

egeozcan wrote: post #290
px43 wrote: post #146

JFC that entire comment section is about blaming the Jews and using some pretty fucking horrific slurs to do it. Let that trash pile burn. Fuck those guys and anyone who would give pieces of shit like that a platform to spread their hatred into the world.

I think trying to win those people may be a better strategy in the long term. People feeling left out are angry, and if the train stops and they ride together, they wouldn't be so anti-social. Again, "I think" (Which is more of a hope, admittedly).

People with views like these shouldn't be given oxygen with platforms that allow them to form community around horrible and hateful ideas. In my opinion they should feel left out, until they realize that it is their immoral views that make them unacceptable to larger society.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#293

Post by ninkendo »

MinusGix wrote: post #116
ninkendo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. Folks can rant about free speech all they want, but no sane person would actually want to experience it. I support your right to speak, but doesn’t mean I want to listen to you. IMO the only parts of the internet that should be absolutely required to allow unfiltered (legal, protected) speech, should be ISP’s, and maybe datacenters that rent out physical rack space. Everyone else should absolutely consi…

I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people. I agree that not having moderation isn't something we can do, for staying on topic or getting rid of certain users. The benefit of Reddit in this is that sub-communities can be made with harsher moderation policies than the ou…

> I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people.

Massively disagree here. Nobody owes anyone a platform. YouTube doesn’t need to host hate speech. Twitter doesn’t need to let people spread false claims about election fraud. They are perfectly within their rights (and I’d argue, their responsibility) to set standards for discourse and acceptable behavior on their platforms.

If you want a site that will host your alternate-reality qanon bullshit, you can always host it yourself.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#294

Post by fatbird »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #214
sthnblllII wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? It took a huge mobilization of media manipulation fear mongering and gas lighting to get the American public to swallow the Weapons of Mass Destruction and/or Saddam did 9/11 lies. If people had been free to speak their minds ( https://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/21/phil_donahue_on_his_2... ) back then we wouldn't have been lead into that war like lemmings. Information is control. I trust the funny cat lady n…

> If people had been free to speak their minds back then Are you under the impression that people weren't free to speak their minds "back then"? People did speak their minds, loudly and regularly. That didn't change the outcome.

Yes: there were marches of millions of people in all the major cities of the Western hemisphere against what were readily understood to be the lies of the Bush Administration rushing to war. Didn't matter. The invasion of Iraq happened, and millions stood dumbfounded, unable to understand how they could have failed when they clearly got their message out.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#295

Post by ninkendo »

Throwaway1771 wrote: post #205
ninkendo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. Folks can rant about free speech all they want, but no sane person would actually want to experience it. I support your right to speak, but doesn’t mean I want to listen to you. IMO the only parts of the internet that should be absolutely required to allow unfiltered (legal, protected) speech, should be ISP’s, and maybe datacenters that rent out physical rack space. Everyone else should absolutely consi…

In many cases, the free speech (shocking stuff) is a litmus test for the compromised nature of the platform. It's important, historically, to test this regularly, and thoroughly. Voat/4Chan et al MUST be viewed in this context. Must!

> Voat/4Chan et al MUST be viewed in this context.

Nah. It really musn’t. We’re all a lot happier without you on our platforms. Qanon can always pay for his own hosting.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#296

Post by pjc50 »

cbozeman wrote: post #141
ignoranceprior wrote: post #4

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…

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…

Some of the worst material is published in newspapers under a byline and a photo. Editorial demanding the murder of refugees, that kind of thing.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#297

Post by triceratops »

birdsbirdsbirds wrote: post #271
yibg wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus there is an asymmetry here. Wild “theories” and purposefully inflammatory content is easy to post, and also easy to believe for those that align with them ideologically. Countering them, especially to a degree that can be convincing, takes a lot more work. End result, a lot more of the former and less of the latter.

How come moderators don't fall for those 'theories'? Or more precisely: Why is there a majority of people who upvote those theories but moderators can identify them as what they are and remove them? What has happened to moderators that they can handle the 'theories' that hasn't happened to regular forum members? Whatever that is, can't this be handed out to new members before they are allowed to vote?

(Good) moderators consider it their job to keep nonsense off their boards. They spend the commensurate time and effort to do so. Normal forum members aren't there for that.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#298

Post by riggernetard »

renewiltord wrote: post #279
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #50

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…

> So the answer has to be to stop the witch hunts in the places where everybody else already is. Got to be honest, bro, I don't really care to sacrifice for "the good of society" or whatever. If you make a website where some dude is going to post anti-Semitic shit everywhere and someone else is going to have to politely explain that Jewish lizard people are not conspiring to elect a Black woman as President then sure…

Reddit didn't 'pick you', it kicked out most of the people who made it a great site in the first place - not even the rightoids, but the original, deviant, unique, outcast users who were there in the early days of the site. They made it special, and they are gone.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#299

Post by jl6 »

pryelluw wrote: post #270
intended wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you think charging for a forum account would change the outcome? Would having people pay for a user account in order to be able to post on a forum reduce the amount of hate speech and related?

Metafilter did this, and I think was highly successful in terms of maintaining civility, but it’s no less an echo chamber.
Post reply on HN