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

©2025 Poal.co

460

BY now everyone knows what a Warrant Canary is and how important they are but I think we can take the concept one step further. I would like propose a new concept: The Free Speech Canary. This was inspired by fuckburg's FB testimony to congress and the questions from Senator Cruz. It may only be valid in the US, but here is the concept:

  • The Canary page is updated with a second section, The Free Speech Canary.
  • Poal.co declares itself to be a Neutral Public Forum and claims protection under Section 230 immunity
  • Poal.co declares it is open to the general public for use
  • Poal.co commits to not removing content unless it is illegal
  • Poal.co commits to not banning users unless they post illegal content or if they compromise the site functionality (Spam, DDoS, etc.)
  • Poal.co delegates moderation of speech on the site to the users themselves via the Owners and Moderators of individual subs
  • The Owners and Moderators of individual subs may restrict speech but only at the risk of that individual sub loosing Neutral Public Forum status and the Owners and Moderators of that individual sub loosing Section 230 immunity. Poal.co itself maintains Neutral Public Forum status and maintains Section 230 immunity because anyone can create a new sub and talk about anything they want.

In my opinion this would be beneficial in several ways:

  • It may not be rock solid, but I believe that this would give the site owner some important legal protections if they are ever sued in US courts
  • This directly discourages cancer mods and censorship at the the sub level because it makes cancer mods liable for their actions
  • Sub Owners and Mods can still do what they want in their own subs; they are simply responsible for their own actions
BY now everyone knows what a Warrant Canary is and how important they are but I think we can take the concept one step further. I would like propose a new concept: The Free Speech Canary. This was inspired by fuckburg's FB testimony to congress and the questions from Senator Cruz. It may only be valid in the US, but here is the concept: - The Canary page is updated with a second section, The Free Speech Canary. - Poal.co declares itself to be a Neutral Public Forum and claims protection under Section 230 immunity - Poal.co declares it is open to the general public for use - Poal.co commits to not removing content unless it is illegal - Poal.co commits to not banning users unless they post illegal content or if they compromise the site functionality (Spam, DDoS, etc.) - Poal.co delegates moderation of speech on the site to the users themselves via the Owners and Moderators of individual subs - The Owners and Moderators of individual subs may restrict speech but only at the risk of that individual sub loosing Neutral Public Forum status and the Owners and Moderators of that individual sub loosing Section 230 immunity. Poal.co itself maintains Neutral Public Forum status and maintains Section 230 immunity because anyone can create a new sub and talk about anything they want. In my opinion this would be beneficial in several ways: - It may not be rock solid, but I believe that this would give the site owner some important legal protections if they are ever sued in US courts - This directly discourages cancer mods and censorship at the the sub level because it makes cancer mods liable for their actions - Sub Owners and Mods can still do what they want in their own subs; they are simply responsible for their own actions

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (22).
[–] • 2 pts

On the pics of kids in underwear, that is absolutely not tolerated as it is sexualization of children. Its why I added that blurb. I will not tolerate drawn loli pics of kids in underwear period. I would not post pictures of my children in underwear as it just isn't appropriate. No pedophilia of ANY KIND I'm not sure how else I can reiterate this. As for the don't be a dick rule I'm not going to make that site wide its too easy to abuse. Having multiple accounts I see no problem with as long as it isn't used to manipulate the vote counts. If it is and see evidence of it that would earn the user in question a ban. Brigading would get a stern talking too from me but if people continued after a warning they would get a ban. If people want to share an account go for it. Share blue those people I think get destroyed easily enough on their own I don't think they need any help from me. If they do create subs to gain points and use it to screw with the content I'll ask them to stop and if they don't I'll remove them. This whole thing needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis and some common sense needs to be applied.

[–] • 0 pt

Cool man. Good to see you have already thought of some of this stuff. That was my only point is that it's a slippery slope between true freedom / site rules / sub rules. I remember so many debates about it on Voat a couple years ago. True free speech vs. all but vs. only free speech I like....you know?

For now, the people here are really cool, but that will quickly change if Voat takes another dump which is 100% guaranteed to happen since there seems to be no plan to change anything.

Sucks when you have to make new rules for assholes, like what happened on Voat and even in some subverses I modded. But that is part of the game. After some discussions when the pedos jump in wanting THEIR free speech, feel like I need a bleach bath....inside and out....

[–] • 1 pt

Well I’m sorry when something happens to voat again, if it does then I’ll be here and the pedos are welcome to come talk here as much as I hate them, but post one thing the shows a young kid near naked you are done. That’s my line I’ve made it clear since day one.

[–] • 0 pt

Just wanna say thanks for that comment and this experiment/site and good luck. Ok, that's about all the puttsucking I'll do lol.

Anyway, I'd recommend not getting too committed to the "canary stuff" I'm not a lawyer but there's always ways around things and any of it just puts you in a bind. You're better off just stating if users are doing illegal shit that gets law enforcement involved, you neglecting to update an announcement won't help.

It's at least honest and saves you a lot of bs.

[–] • 0 pt

Oh if the users are doing illegal stuff beyond possibly copy write stuff I'll notify the authorities myself. I will not tolerate pedophilia in any form. I'll update the canary and if I receive something about that it will be included.

[–] • 0 pt

Puttitout's problem (speculation) with canarys was he made a promise to users that LE kept him from keeping which is why he couldn't make an announcement (and update the canary) for months.

You probably shouldn't even state that you'll report stuff yourself because that can put an onus on you. Safe harbor law read soon. But being honest with users that you "may have to cooperate with law enforcement" if forced is much better than pretending there's a way to protect pervs or whatever like putt did.