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

©2026 Poal.co

606

many use the New feature to look thru what hasnt been seen before. when upvoted it commends the user and bumps up the post but the sliding up doesnt offer much benifit to the user.

with downvotes poals content is pruned or effectively curated unlike what the upvote can do.

this remind me of the human brain and youtube. both achieve greater success when a filter or selectivity is employed. i also block users from time to time when they are found to incite issues.

and also, do any of you tell people in public about poal?

goodday

many use the New feature to look thru what hasnt been seen before. when upvoted it commends the user and bumps up the post but the sliding up doesnt offer much benifit to the user. with downvotes poals content is pruned or effectively curated unlike what the upvote can do. this remind me of the human brain and youtube. both achieve greater success when a filter or selectivity is employed. i also block users from time to time when they are found to incite issues. and also, do any of you tell people in public about poal? goodday

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (41).
[–] • 0 pt

i call you a shill and thats "unreasonable" wow you are a female arguing stuff you shouldnt.

Much like how you thought it was ridiculous for me to think you have "problems 'behaving' or acting" for disagreeing with me, I think you were unreasonable for calling me a shill for my disagreement. Are you honestly having trouble following that reasoning?

no! i said i didnt invoke the term that you purport

I'm aware that you never said "ordered liberty". I'm wondering if that's what you referred to or have heard of it. I was suggesting you look at a philosophical concept that I was unsure you were aware of considering you referred to it as though you never encountered it. That wasn't part of my argument, just a suggestion.

My last point was saying "leaves the possibility of subversion" is actually a silly argument. Since you said what I am arguing in favor of is open to the possibility of subversion, that implies what you offer is impervious to it. Another way to read what you said is "but bad things can still happen if things are the way you want." It's the implication of those words I took issue with. Maybe it was a poorly thought out statement and you don't actually agree with it. We all have those moments. I apologize if I made a big deal out of a sloppy minor thought.