Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

924

So over the past few days I have noticed and involved in a bit of drama with people using the downvote button as and I don't like you button or an I disagree button. This really saddens me. I don't like seeing it. I think the downvote button should be for spam or things that are irrelevant. Thats what I think we should use it for. If you disagree make an argument. If you just hate a user why not ignore them or even block them. Please don't try to censor them. Everyone here deserves to have free speech. Even the people you don't like. Even the people you disagree with. Without free speech, what do we have? Without it we have fallen. I don't accept that we have fallen. I think we have ascended to a point where everyone has a voice. No matter what their opinion. The free market of ideas will show what are the best ideas. Don't let yourself fall into the habit of trying to censor ideas you don't like your arguments will do that better than any vote could.

So over the past few days I have noticed and involved in a bit of drama with people using the downvote button as and I don't like you button or an I disagree button. This really saddens me. I don't like seeing it. I think the downvote button should be for spam or things that are irrelevant. Thats what I think we should use it for. If you disagree make an argument. If you just hate a user why not ignore them or even block them. Please don't try to censor them. Everyone here deserves to have free speech. Even the people you don't like. Even the people you disagree with. Without free speech, what do we have? Without it we have fallen. I don't accept that we have fallen. I think we have ascended to a point where everyone has a voice. No matter what their opinion. The free market of ideas will show what are the best ideas. Don't let yourself fall into the habit of trying to censor ideas you don't like your arguments will do that better than any vote could.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (57).
[–] • 6 pts

Not saying I disagree but question:

How does a downvote limit or censor free speech? Even if I get 1000 downvotes and no upvotes, I am still able to say what I want.

I ask this since if/when this site gets a lot bigger, there will really be no way to police how people use downvotes. You'll be in the whack-a-mole business.

If you think a downvote is free speech inhibiting, why not disable it altogether and add in "report spam / it's irrelevant" buttons? Those buttons would then notify the moderator to review the post or comment if it is SPAM / trolling / brigading etc...

[–] • 4 pts

you have a point. I'm not sure what to do with it but you have a point.

[–] • 3 pts

That's why I brought it up. The topics like that discussed here were all discussed on Voat before the big migrations. I remember I even had a sub dedicated to keeping tabs on the trolls/spammers (before protect voat). That was great when it was small. When the hordes came, it was all bets off though as they brought folks like sanegoat, amalek and empireofthemind etc. Even before the paid shills.

One thing I think Voat did right was the janitor role. If that had been coupled with a better flagging system (like I kinda went into) I think it had a shot at succeeding. And I think it did for a while. But ultimately the lack of admin leadership just killed every good initiative over there. Like the whole subverse transfer drama. moe (young girl anime weirdo) did it for a while but when he left, no one picked it up.

Same with cynabuns doing the janitor role for system subs. When she (they) disappeared, no one stepped up. I don't think anyone could step up with MIA admins.

Lots and lots of good lessons to learn from the growth and ongoing demise of Voat.

[–] • 3 pts

agreed. Lots of lessons to learn. The same will not happen here.

[–] • 3 pts

Putt killed our (as spam janitors) momentum by ignoring our calls for help. That’s why voat is what it is today.

[–] • 3 pts

Per your last paragraph, wouldn't that consolidate a lot of power in just one (or more) persons hands? It would be the opposite of community desires. I would think having all users involved rather than limiting it to just a few people, who can manipulate and coordinate with selected friends. I'm not able to offer the solution, just some thoughts.

[–] • 1 pt

Not necessarily if setup correctly.

Example:

Have similar to janitor role here. Can only delete items that have been flagged by say more than 1 user. Deleted items go into publicly viewable log of deletions. Cannot mark something themselves then delete it. Of course someone could create multiple accounts, but if / when that type of activity was identified, then an active admin steps in and removes the janitor role. I would not call it a janitor role either. What a shitty degrading name for an important role. How about "Thankless Savior of Poal" or similar?

With the community vigilant then we should be looking at two people needing to review something before it's deleted. Go a step further and add an admin queue into that. Flagged by user / flagged by Savior / ultimately deleted by admin. That would be a great idea for the Savior trial period to make sure they are legit.

[–] • 1 pt

That sounds like a possible solution. Obviously this is a problem with most sites. Putt has wrestled with this kind of user control for months. It was discussed with a lot of people on the preview site and seems to be quite more involved than one might think. It will take more discussion here to develop what will work on this site.

[–] • 1 pt

To illustrate further. And yes, I know this would mean a shit ton of code and logic....

Now it has "permalink reply source" at the bottom. You could add "spam irrelevant". Clicking spam or irrelevant flags that post into either the spam or irrelevant queue for the Savior. Savior then reviews his/her queues to see if said posts / comments are violations Poals rule or TOS. If so, they then flag for admin. Then admin reviews and ultimately decides if the post stays or goes. Add in 1 more role for Sub admin or something that is an unsupervised savior. One who has proven themselves to be fair and legit. Then the queue no longer passes through admin. That would be a viable setup for future growth when admins are too busy to review every flagged post.