use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~1 user here now
● /s/Agenda21_Agenda2030 ● /s/ClassWar ● /s/ClimateSkeptics ● /s/Coronavirus ● /s/Corporatocracy ● /s/CorruptScience ● /s/CultureWars ● /s/FoodCrises ● /s/FuckMasks ● /s/LockdownSkepticism ● /s/Pushback ● /s/ResistanceAnalysis ● /s/Surveillance ● /s/Technocracy ● /s/Tyranny ● /s/Unrest ● /s/VaccineInjuries ● /s/VaccineSkepticism
Ask to be co-moderator or earn an invitation.
CSS by /u/JasonCarswell
/s/VaccineInjuries - A new sub for documenting vaccine injuries and deaths.
submitted 2 years ago by JasonCarswell from self.VaccineInjuries
view the rest of the comments →
[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun - 2 years ago* (6 children)
If have some of those very stupid people on my ignore list.
That is why I propose for more censorship, with clear rules that bind posts and replies to logical consistency. (No logical fallacies allowed, like insults, etc.)
[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
clear rules that bind posts and replies to logical consistency.
Excellent idea. Food for thought.
Not sure how this could be achieved without much more user interaction. Most SaidIt folks are simply lazy, while many Wikipedia folks are looking for shit to disturb. I would guess that with enough data it wouldn't matter if you were consistent or not as your profile would speak for itself, whether you were quality or not, consistent or not, or a socks-like shill or not.
But problematically for content with very little interaction things would remain nebulous.
Wikipedia projects require you to fill out forms before you upload media. It can be annoying at times, but at least it assures that the content is reasonably categorized and not copyrighted. I wonder if a more detailed submission page might help or hinder.
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (4 children)
No logical fallacies allowed
If only....
[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 2 years ago (3 children)
Indeed, shill.
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (2 children)
Awww - poor Jason needs a hug, with this
[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 2 years ago (1 child)
If it were clever or witty I might at least salute your creativity, but alas, it just sounds like a threat of violence from a shill.
view the rest of the comments →
[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun - (6 children)
[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - (0 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - (3 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - (1 child)