Voat literally praises the mass murder, repeatedly calling him a hero. 90% of voat upvotes in agreement.

submitted by magnora7 from (voat.co)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7[S] 52 insightful - 8 fun52 insightful - 7 fun53 insightful - 8 fun -  (12 children)

Then sane comments that call out the nonsense are downvoted:

https://voat.co/v/whatever/3099068/17411620

https://voat.co/v/whatever/3099068/17411920

Voat is overrun with shills, and white supremacists who can't tell they're surrounded by shills. Voat has a lot of free speech, but very little moral backbone despite all the grandstanding they do. I guess that's what happens when you let white supremecist neo-nazis literally take over your site and run it for their own benefit. They'll cheer on murder as long as the people killed have the skin color and religion they don't like.

Disgusting.

This is why voat can't be the next reddit. This is why we had to build saidit, to give people a 3rd option, because one didn't really exist. Free information for those who aren't completely lost to extremist ideology. Which is why this site used to be called antiextremes.com back in the day

[–]Alduin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I've read this before I think from you, and I don't really understand what you mean. You are creating a space for non-extreme content, right? So first of all how do you define that? Secondly, with the content being user generated, what are you going to do if you have an extremist user or extremist sub?

Can you please go into more detail about specifically how you plan to make this site different?

[–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

So first of all how do you define that?

By the pyramid of debate, check out the site rules: https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/j1/the_saiditnet_terms_and_content_policy/

If something is so extremist it's repeatedly not adding value as per the pyramid of debate, then it'll be removed.

[–]Alduin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So if I just agree with you all the time, my content will be removed? How about if I'm just sharing news or memes or whatever and not engaging in debate at all?

I hope you can understand my point here. You're putting an awful lot of eggs in a basket of obscurity and limited use cases, in my opinion. This pyramid is only about debating. How that relates to extremist views still illudes me.

[–]magnora7[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's more about judging the content of their character.

If you're constantly shitposting, then you probably will end up doing lots of ad-hominims, which I can point out as the bottom of the pyramid, for example.

This pyramid is only about debating. How that relates to extremist views still illudes me.

The site is for discussion, and those not discussing in good faith will be removed. It's not complex, don't try and make it so.

We simply cannot map out every edge case, and even if we did, then we've just created a very well-defined set of boundaries for trolls to exactly avoid. More rules doesn't mean a better system. Reddit was clear evidence of this. Hell, even US law is evidence of this.

At the end of the day, if you like saidit use it. If you don't, don't use it.

I don't intend to let this place turn in to voat, nor do I intend for it to become reddit. We hope to learn from the mistakes of both.

If you have a better plan or ruleset, I'm all ears. We're always trying to improve.

[–]Stoner 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This pyramid is only about debating. How that relates to extremist views still illudes me.

The site is for discussion, and those not discussing in good faith will be removed. It's not complex, don't try and make it so.

I've had many interesting and civil discussions with people who have extreme views. Extremist views could very well be "I like to eat babies and would like to create a very polite community of children torturers where we can discuss our hobby in accordance with the pyramid".

and those not discussing in good faith will be removed. It's not complex, don't try and make it so.

Whose measurement of good faith do we use as a basis for judgment, since it's an ultra-subjective definition?

we've just created a very well-defined set of boundaries for trolls to exactly avoid. More rules doesn't mean a better system. Reddit was clear evidence of this. Hell, even US law is evidence of this.

All countries have laws, including those with the highest happiness rating. The US law example is interesting, seeing how I'm from Scandinavia - an area often held as an opposite to the US when it comes to at least correctional systems.

We have laws, but compared to the US they're based on the interest of the people, not the elite. We have correctional systems, but compared to the US they have different goals. It's not about proper laws or not, it's about good or bad laws and who they're good or bad for.

Right now I'm still seeing how the saidit laws are intentionally obscured so the rulers can ultimately give people the "death penalty" based on their subjective and somewhat moralistic views.

At the end of the day, if you like saidit use it. If you don't, don't use it.

That's a fair ultimatum.

If you have a better plan or ruleset, I'm all ears.

Make well-defined and thought out rules, publicly display them and enforce them evenly. Don't unban those who've you kicked out for a month of spamming and don't give a shit if the price is that one or two bitter assholes goes around and badmouths saidit.

There's about to be a shitload of new people whose experience of saidit is that there's no clear rules and the admins enforce them by asking people to be polite. What do you think @alduin is going to say to his friends when he asked about posting memes and your answer is that if you think it's shitposting, he's going to get banned?

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You gotta see this baby eater video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93kkEMIXu5s It's not so bad after you watch it a few times.

I was equally skeptical with lots of questions when I first came here. You're not going to find better answers seeking more rules. There are no better answers without looking at those who were dealt with to show by example. Ask m7 about the 3 times he had to ban folks and the one he's considering now, and why he's hesitant, what the pros and cons are, etc. Also be sure to ask about how it was dealt with regarding transparency, warnings, chances given, democratic forums, etc.

Shitposting will get you a warning. I got one. (It's a long embarassing tedious story: /s/quotes/comments/8kd/einstein_quote_if_its_smaller_than_my_fist_or_an/ ) I thought it was obviously silly. I didn't get the big deal until they patiently explained it to me. I didn't even know what shitposting was. I've also never been a Redditor. I came here to be a truther free to seek and speak truth.

IMHO, SaidIt needs to state this more: SaidIt is a classy place.

That's how we can avoid being censored and remain civil and provide quality over quantity. Sure we all may slip into the gutter on occasion, but none of us dwell there.

[–]Greedeater 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well said.

[–]FormosaOolong 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

if you like saidit use it. If you don't, don't use it.

I think this should be on the main page banner!

[–]Bompf 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That looks like an excuse to justify removing peoples whose ideologies don't align with yours to me.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's not ideological in a left/right sense, it's just low on the pyramid of debate.

[–]Bompf 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Any one who starts censoring people will use it to censor those who disagree with them.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A complete lack of any content removal will end up in this site looking like voat, which is against our stated goal