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

©2024 Poal.co

1.3K

Example of a problem in the current design: ABC News joins Poal and blocks every non-shill from commenting on their shit.

Now, when others visit the ABC News post, all they see is comments from shills, giving a false perspective of reality. No one can dissent, becaue ABC News essentially made it verboten.

Seems to me, if people want to block someone, it should simply filter out their posts/comment threads, and nothing more.

Mainly, I want to tell people @MildSalsa is a time traveling bull man, but he's blocked me so no one can hear the truth. It is important people know this.

**Example of a problem in the current design**: ABC News joins Poal and blocks every non-shill from commenting on their shit. Now, when others visit the ABC News post, all they see is comments from shills, giving a false perspective of reality. No one can dissent, becaue ABC News essentially made it verboten. Seems to me, if people want to block someone, it should simply filter out their posts/comment threads, and nothing more. Mainly, I want to tell people @MildSalsa is a [time traveling bull man](https://poal.co/s/MeanwhileOnPoal/323157), but he's blocked me so no one can hear the truth. It is important people know this.

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts

They won’t be able to block users with a new account so they’re gonna have to post real news first, then when they get that ability, they still won’t be able to block more than 50 users, and if they try to create alts to post fake supportive comments and votes, the algorithm will slap their soy filled faces.

[–] • 1 pt

Any hope of having a filter-only option? So that discussions cannot be silenced when OP doesn't like what a user is saying?

These safeguards prevent the ABC news scenario from perpetuating ad-nauseam, but we still have the problem where I cannot inform people about @MildSalsa's status as a time-traveling bull man, because he's blocked me.

I realize the implementation of such a filter-only option could require a great deal of work (or be intractable). I do think it would be beneficial to the concept of free speech and the unabaited sharing of ideas. The current safeguards are great, btw. Well thought out.

[–] • 1 pt

That’s something we can discuss with @pmyb2. Anything/ideas that could help improving Poal are welcome. 😉

[–] • 1 pt

REEEEE POWER ADMIN TAKING SUGGESTIONS

REEEEEEEEEEeeEEEeEeEEeEEEEEEE!!!

[–] • 1 pt

Unrelated question for you, bossman:

What's the policy here on someone claiming ownership of a sub for the sole purpose of locking it and preventing anyone else from doing something with it?

Like if I wanted to start a /s/CarCollectors or something, but some other user claimed that sub and locked it because "Only faggots do this, fuck you all"

Is whatever sub just permanently off limits because some douche claimed the name first to shut everyone else out?

[–] • 0 pt

Unless it’s a popular name used on several platforms, you might wanna create your own sub and make it better than theirs.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

In this instance, there's nothing to make better. They're not actually using the sub, they never have plans to use it, it's not something they have an intellectual property claim over, they just don't agree with the overall concept so they want to prevent anyone else from ever being able to even make posts there.

No posts, no nothing, just "I took this name to prevent its use because I disagree with the concept, fuck everyone."

Like if someone declared themselves the moderator of /s/Funny and then just completely blocked the sub from any and all use.

What I'm talking about IS a name used on other platforms, and I had wanted to start it up here and curate the content, but someone who doesn't like the idea snatched the subverse name expressly to prevent it from ever being used.