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

©2026 Poal.co

289
I'm all for a voting system, but if those votes have consequences, then I agree voting should be regulated to avoid large groups forcing their viewpoints on others. Also, if votes come with consequences besides that of people seeing your vote counts then I wouldn't call it speech.

I'm all for a voting system, but if those votes have consequences, then I agree voting should be regulated to avoid large groups forcing their viewpoints on others.

Also, if votes come with consequences besides that of people seeing your vote counts then I wouldn't call it speech.

Yes
No
Maybe
Fuck You!

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

There's a fucking down vote button. Period. Why is everybody so scared of it? Why do you use the word 'censored'?? If there's a comment like I got yesterday about somebody wanting to fuck my dead mother!!!! USE IT!!!!

[–] • 3 pts

You use it for spam.

[–] • 2 pts

Then the button should be changed to say "report spam". A down arrow below an up arrow does not suggest the down is for reporting spam. It suggests it is the opposite of up, which is to say up it is like/agree according to how the vast majority of sites use an up arrow. Why have confusing UI/UX if it means something other than what is generally understood to have another meaning? Having to explain or defend bad UI/UX just means that the design is poorly thought out.

[–] • 1 pt

chill out, that's part of my next poll

[–] • 1 pt

I think it's wrong to assume the up arrow means "I agree." I tend to upvote people who put some effort in, even if I'm arguing with them. Up could also mean "important."

Having to explain or defend bad UI/UX just means that the design is poorly thought out.

Maybe.

[–] • 0 pt

I deemed your comment “non spam” by pressing the up arrow.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

it's such a good sheep

[–] • 0 pt

Downvote brigading is more likely to promote a herd mentality. And that is certainly what the feature would be used for if the downvotes were able to hide posts.

[–] • 1 pt

I don't know entirely how downvotes are handled by poal, but as I understand it the mods assblast your account if you get enough downvotes

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

and there's limited blocking. so you're stuck with ignorant asshole skinheads name calling you

[–] • 0 pt

So maybe a system where you decide what determines content being visible to you?

[–] • 1 pt

One. One downvote wiped out my 2 yo account, sent me to -100 and branded me “suspicious behavior”. One downvoat.

[–] • 0 pt

That'll teach ya

So then what's your stance regarding all the downvote stuff?

[–] • 2 pts

... If downvoating is inhibited because of affiliated censorship sentiment, is it considered censorship?

[–] • 0 pt

Not sure which way to take this question

But I see the downvote as only existing to censor, so it's regulated to avoid mass censorship. So if we want to allow downvoting to be open to anyone at any time, under the argument that it's free speech, then I would also want the censorship aspect removed.

With the current talks about the downvote button, I'm on the side of leaving it as it is or reworking it more than just letting people downvote all they want.

[–] • 1 pt

I am on the same mindset as you. If downvote brigading is revealed then that is good enough for all i believe

[–] • 2 pts

That's absurd. Speech doesn't cease to be speech because you don't like its effects. If I defraud your grandmother I'll be using speech to do it, even if that speech is legally culpable.

[–] • 0 pt

But its effects are controlled by the creators of poal, not by the people. In this virtual space it means something more than just expressing your opinion against or for an idea.

[–] • 1 pt

To be clear, though, you are arguing about regulating speech. Your attempt to redefine the meaning speech is unconvincing.

If you want to regulate speech, then actually explain why the area you want to prohibit or regulate needs it. I gave an example of speech which few people would disagree should be punished, namely fraud. I didn't say fraud isn't speech as though some magical quality removed it from the category.

It may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction. Redefining words to win creates a slippery slope where nothing is ever secure. Actually addressing an issue clearly and forthrightly should serve to contain the problem without leading to the cure spreading such that it is worse than the disease.

[–] • 1 pt

Yea I see what you're saying.

I'm really trying to argue that if your upvotes and downvotes are not simply you expressing your opinion, but are actually mechanisms for getting people banned, or shadowbanned or whatever, then you should not really say regulation of it is anti-free speech

[–] • 1 pt

So then the up vote button isn't an "I agree" or "I like this" button, either. Which is what everyone uses it for.

[–] • 0 pt

It's a bit fucked then eh?

[–] • 1 pt

Ye that's why I voted for "Fuck You!"

[–] • 1 pt

If a asked you a question and never let you answer would you think your opinion matters?

[–] • 0 pt

Not to you. But what do you mean?

[–] • 1 pt

Your opinion does matter to me. Its why I engaged. My response was designed to confuse. It is the same answer to your question, Short answer is No. If down voting censors post and comments, is it considered speech. No, it is not! As would be your opinion if not allowed to answer.

[–] • 0 pt

I get that you meant they have the same answer, I just don't see your question connecting well enough to mine for it to really click.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt (edited )

Depends on the EXPLANATION (should be a requirement). WHAT is done about SERIAL downvoters? People who go into your "comments" list and just downvote everything you've posted without leaving ANY comments???

[–] • 1 pt

Yea I'm thinking of some ideas to submit to the devs. But my question is more for "as it stands"

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

seems EZPZ (to me) to implement, voat wasn't interested, though NOW we KNOW why (dead).

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

is it considered speech

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That sound so much like a...

Downvotes should be less restricted than they are now. Too many obvious CTR, shariablue, JIDF, and shill accounts are coming and it's obnoxious.

downvote is mroe than I disagree

No. No it is not.

[–] • 2 pts

go on

[–] • 3 pts

If a user posts something obviously wrong, or obviously malicious, or obviously subversive, or obviously kikey then I should not need to reply. I should not get harmed in any way for downvoting it. He should not be protected by some retarded rule.

Free Speech and censorship free, while admirable: have no place in a non homogeneous group setting. None. None at all. This is EASILY proven with one simple statement: Your enemies WILL ALWAYS use your speech protections to attack and subvert you. This is not something I should need to prove or show examples of it's so obvious. But reddit is a perfect example. As are twitter, facebook, tumblr, (((ruqqus))) etc.

I'm not sure 's goals here. But they're too blinded by their own positive outlooks. They will be crucified on their misplaced love of free speech. As is happening the world over in once White countries.

[–] • 0 pt

But don't downvotes affect the visibility of your content?

Or do the mods only use it to ban people with a large number of downvotes? And that's why they only want you to use it to mark spam? And also that's why there are consequences to users who downvote post that aren't necessarily spam?