5 ms·

The problem with voat is it basically the dregs of reddit so no-one respectable wants to be associated with it. But if reddit bans enough stuff that is semi-res

The problem with voat is it basically the dregs of reddit so no-one respectable wants to be associated with it. But if reddit bans enough stuff that is semi-respectable and those people are able to hold their nose to migrate to voat they might end up making voat respectable enough to overcome their current poor reputation.

platinumrad 9y ago
Maybe that will happen but I don't think the site will be Voat. Its reputation is far too toxic at this point.
superkuh 9y ago
It has reached that point. I'm moving to voat.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  Let us know what kind of riveting discussions you have with racists, sexists, and conspiracy theorists.
  - krapp 9y ago
    Unfortunately, racists, sexists and conspiracy theorists appear to be the only people who still believe in freedom of speech, and are willing to fight to keep it. Even many of the "hackers" around here seem to support regulation and censorship.
    - kadenshep 9y ago
      No I'm pretty sure the majority of people support true and blue free speech.
    - jetpks 9y ago
      This isn’t a free speech issue. The government isn’t stopping anyone from speaking or thinking anything they want. Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want
      - krapp 9y ago
        I've seen a number of comments and articles suggesting that, somehow, social media and the freedom of communication permitted by the internet are incompatible with democracy and social order. There seems to be a fear of freedom of speech as a dangerous principle which could lead to a demand for government control, or at the very least, a general mistrust of non centralized and proprietary communications platforms. >Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want. Wherever you want, no... but whatever you want, yes, more or less. The only rights protecting you and I are the rights that protect the scum that many people currently (and understandably) want to see driven off of social media and out of public discourse. They act as the canaries in the coal mine of personal liberty, and democracy depends on the capacity for the free exchange of ideas, communication and debate.
      - function_seven 9y ago
        Sure it is. It's not a 1st Amendment issue, true. But—generically—it is a free speech issue. Reddit is adding more rules about what you can and can't post, which affects how free the speech is on their platform. They are entirely within their rights to do this. No doubt. Voat does not have as many (any?) restrictions on the content users can post. The speech is freer on their platform. I may sound pedantic on this, but I think it's important to fight for freedoms even when they're not enshrined in law. So to grandparent's point, the bigots are often the ones who do so, as a matter of necessity. Now the gun, beer, and cigar aficionados are finding themselves in the same category as Nazis and Klansmen.
        brianmurphy 9y ago
        I wonder if any of the proponents of booting large groups of users understand tribalism. It is easy to see one of the unintended consequences of grouping cigar aficionados, home brewers, and gun enthusiasts in with the racists is that they will form common cause to fight back against the "enemy" who are trying to criminalize their hobbies.
      - kerkeslager 9y ago
        This is absolutely a free speech issue. Not in the sense that it's protected by law, but the law isn't relevant. The bill of rights comes from a belief that certain rights are self-evident and inherent to all people. In the modern mindset, we have a broader definition of "people" than the founding fathers (that is, we include people of all genders and races). Included in those rights is freedom of speech. Human rights don't simply disappear because you're communicating on a corporate-owned platform.
  - superkuh 9y ago
    You have to be the change you want to see. I have no problem with other people holding views which I think are disgusting. The only thing I have a problem with is censorship. H. L. Mencken quote is applicable here, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." edit, The one thing I'm finding I really don't like about Voat is that it requires whitelisting Javascript from google domains in order to be able to post.
    - kadenshep 9y ago
      I think we need more censorship quite frankly.
      - dingo_bat 9y ago
        I can think of no reasonable justification for that comment.
        kadenshep 9y ago
        It's a satirical comment pointing out how ridiculous OP's platitude filled comment is.
      - HyperTalk2 9y ago
        Maybe you do. If you dislike the first amendment, there are plenty of countries you can move to that don't have it.
        kadenshep 9y ago
        Definitely love censorship. The only people who don't love censorship are those fighting for the free speech rights of racists and conspiracy theorists. And no, I live in this country so I think I'll be the change I want to see in the world.
      - jboggan 9y ago
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- factsareright 9y ago
  You are definitely prepared for voat, but for the others reading this, make note that voat is like 4chan; part of their defense mechanism is to get people who use words like "racist" upset and make them leave (and then go tell their friends how bad voat is). The crowd of people who just care about freedom of speech, transparency, and corruption, have been chased from platform to platform. users like go1dfish are a good example, he is known on reddit and voat, but he is an example of someone who was forced off reddit for having the wrong thoughts. We were chased off of digg way before digg4 came out and we went to reddit where people like swartz cared about transparency and no censorship. Then we were chased off the main subs of reddit, then our subs got subverted, then shit started disappearing, and now we are on voat. Remember that many prominent progressives and socialists are also blacklisted by the bulk of NPR/reddit types. Kucinich is a prime example, Ed Shultz is another; their crime is to tell their followers to think rationally about the situation. This is where people like me, and I guess you, find themselves.
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    >Remember that many prominent progressives and socialists are also blacklisted by the bulk of NPR/reddit types. No they aren't.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thinkingemote 9y ago
redditors belong to many subreddits. by banning some subreddits, reddit doesn't just affect those subreddits, they affect the users who post in many other subreddits also. If they move to Voat, they will straighten out the site, they will bring good content, and then others will come for that. Just as reddit has toxic content, but hardly anyone goes there, so will Voat have the same characteristics....but at the moment, it's not like that. reddit was mainly a tech forum when it started, then people started making it more accessible, then more people arrived.

platinumrad 9y ago

Maybe that will happen but I don't think the site will be Voat. Its reputation is far too toxic at this point.

superkuh 9y ago

It has reached that point. I'm moving to voat.

kadenshep 9y ago
Let us know what kind of riveting discussions you have with racists, sexists, and conspiracy theorists.
- krapp 9y ago
  Unfortunately, racists, sexists and conspiracy theorists appear to be the only people who still believe in freedom of speech, and are willing to fight to keep it. Even many of the "hackers" around here seem to support regulation and censorship.
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    No I'm pretty sure the majority of people support true and blue free speech.
  - jetpks 9y ago
    This isn’t a free speech issue. The government isn’t stopping anyone from speaking or thinking anything they want. Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want
    - krapp 9y ago
      I've seen a number of comments and articles suggesting that, somehow, social media and the freedom of communication permitted by the internet are incompatible with democracy and social order. There seems to be a fear of freedom of speech as a dangerous principle which could lead to a demand for government control, or at the very least, a general mistrust of non centralized and proprietary communications platforms. >Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want. Wherever you want, no... but whatever you want, yes, more or less. The only rights protecting you and I are the rights that protect the scum that many people currently (and understandably) want to see driven off of social media and out of public discourse. They act as the canaries in the coal mine of personal liberty, and democracy depends on the capacity for the free exchange of ideas, communication and debate.
    - function_seven 9y ago
      Sure it is. It's not a 1st Amendment issue, true. But—generically—it is a free speech issue. Reddit is adding more rules about what you can and can't post, which affects how free the speech is on their platform. They are entirely within their rights to do this. No doubt. Voat does not have as many (any?) restrictions on the content users can post. The speech is freer on their platform. I may sound pedantic on this, but I think it's important to fight for freedoms even when they're not enshrined in law. So to grandparent's point, the bigots are often the ones who do so, as a matter of necessity. Now the gun, beer, and cigar aficionados are finding themselves in the same category as Nazis and Klansmen.
      - brianmurphy 9y ago
        I wonder if any of the proponents of booting large groups of users understand tribalism. It is easy to see one of the unintended consequences of grouping cigar aficionados, home brewers, and gun enthusiasts in with the racists is that they will form common cause to fight back against the "enemy" who are trying to criminalize their hobbies.
    - kerkeslager 9y ago
      This is absolutely a free speech issue. Not in the sense that it's protected by law, but the law isn't relevant. The bill of rights comes from a belief that certain rights are self-evident and inherent to all people. In the modern mindset, we have a broader definition of "people" than the founding fathers (that is, we include people of all genders and races). Included in those rights is freedom of speech. Human rights don't simply disappear because you're communicating on a corporate-owned platform.
- superkuh 9y ago
  You have to be the change you want to see. I have no problem with other people holding views which I think are disgusting. The only thing I have a problem with is censorship. H. L. Mencken quote is applicable here, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." edit, The one thing I'm finding I really don't like about Voat is that it requires whitelisting Javascript from google domains in order to be able to post.
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    I think we need more censorship quite frankly.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      I can think of no reasonable justification for that comment.
      - kadenshep 9y ago
        It's a satirical comment pointing out how ridiculous OP's platitude filled comment is.
    - HyperTalk2 9y ago
      Maybe you do. If you dislike the first amendment, there are plenty of countries you can move to that don't have it.
      - kadenshep 9y ago
        Definitely love censorship. The only people who don't love censorship are those fighting for the free speech rights of racists and conspiracy theorists. And no, I live in this country so I think I'll be the change I want to see in the world.
    - jboggan 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
factsareright 9y ago
You are definitely prepared for voat, but for the others reading this, make note that voat is like 4chan; part of their defense mechanism is to get people who use words like "racist" upset and make them leave (and then go tell their friends how bad voat is). The crowd of people who just care about freedom of speech, transparency, and corruption, have been chased from platform to platform. users like go1dfish are a good example, he is known on reddit and voat, but he is an example of someone who was forced off reddit for having the wrong thoughts. We were chased off of digg way before digg4 came out and we went to reddit where people like swartz cared about transparency and no censorship. Then we were chased off the main subs of reddit, then our subs got subverted, then shit started disappearing, and now we are on voat. Remember that many prominent progressives and socialists are also blacklisted by the bulk of NPR/reddit types. Kucinich is a prime example, Ed Shultz is another; their crime is to tell their followers to think rationally about the situation. This is where people like me, and I guess you, find themselves.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  >Remember that many prominent progressives and socialists are also blacklisted by the bulk of NPR/reddit types. No they aren't.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

thinkingemote 9y ago

redditors belong to many subreddits. by banning some subreddits, reddit doesn't just affect those subreddits, they affect the users who post in many other subreddits also. If they move to Voat, they will straighten out the site, they will bring good content, and then others will come for that. Just as reddit has toxic content, but hardly anyone goes there, so will Voat have the same characteristics....but at the moment, it's not like that. reddit was mainly a tech forum when it started, then people started making it more accessible, then more people arrived.