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

©2026 Poal.co

599
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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (63).
[–] • 1 pt

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

Yes. Which i s why it should do no harm to the downvoter for downvoting.

If someone posts something retarded they should not be seen. It's not a difficult concept.

[–] • 1 pt

I know I've said things that people thought were genuinely retarded, and it took them a second to understand what I was trying to say. If people could just shut me up because they felt no one should listen to me then I would think this place is just an echo chamber.

And also being able to censor people like that is what leads to this rise of a majority censoring everyone else like they have in other forums.

I like the idea of being able to see how other people agree or disagree with an idea, but I don't like that it can be used to censor others, or that others can decide what I get to see.

[–] • 1 pt

the majority not wanting to hear your kikery is bad

No. Fuck off and leave if you don't like that.

The premise lies on the ridiculous notion that all speech is good.

The premise lies on the ridiculous notion that all speech has value.

The premise lies on the ridiculous notion that all speech is worth hearing.

Literally non of the above three are true.

Moderated speech IS NECESSARY when kikes and shills et al. WILL AND HAVE SHOWN that they will use such policies to subvert from. This method is necessary to keep 230 protections. The admins can't modify speech or they'd become a publisher versus a platform.

The users, the community deserve to moderate their community through nonmoderation.

[–] • 0 pt

oy vey, I've been found out.

But no seriously, I would say about whichever nigger-faggot-kike group you wanna avoid, they don't often turn a population by the spread of their ideas. It's usually done by the censoring of other groups' ideas.

So I would argue it's more dangerous to let everyone spam downvotes than to let everyone talk.

[–] • 0 pt

Arguably, though, if downvotes not only register the downvoter's disagreement but also affect the visibility of the post or comment, they are not just speech but also manipulation (censorship) of another's speech. What if you could downvote but other than having your vote be visible, it had no effect on the post/comment. How would you feel about that?

[–] • 0 pt

Then why the fuck have it?

You faggots need to stupid being so retarded.

It's absolutely, 100% NOT CENSORSHIP.

Making the claim that it is might be more jewish than male genital mutilation.

[–] • 0 pt

Who is "you faggots"? I'm exploring your position. If a downvote is "only" speech then why does it have a different effect than a negative comment would?

It is clearly more than that. But as you point out, if Poal doesn't like it actually being used why have it instead of a report spam button like every other site in existence?

I liked Voat better than this place, but the downvotes from redditfugees did negatively affect its character from when I joined close to 6 years ago. Still Poal seems designed like an experiment in obedience training.