There was a user long ago names Zook.
There was a thread, which can attest to, who worked with Atko back in the day. This user revealed that Voat had code, written out and used already and everything, to explicitly shadow ban users. The same user notes its been tested on spammers already and they know it works.
When this was brought up, Peaceseeker was right there to curb the dissent. He explains that it was in face never implemented, and falls back on an argument hinging on an appeal to Putt's authority.
Voat isn't transparent. It's not necessarily unsafe, but the place is a den of liars who very clearly get paid in some manner to produce content for the site (this is actually hinted at in the welcome page... Which peaceseeker was also quick to shut down any discussion about), shape opinions and defend Voat's authorities.
Would you care to weigh in on this, ? Maybe you could at least confirm for our friends who are reading?
Also sorry for such shitty formatting and spelling. I'm in a hurry.
I don't doubt you for a minute.
Peaceseeker shills for Vatican... No surprise from me, though. But, that's telling enough, I'd like to think.
Always the first to jump in in defense of any negative.
Is this true?
Don't take my word for it.
Any onlookers should see 's comment history on Voat (not here). Only a few pages in, addresses concerns about Zook with (I believe) heygeorge and peaceseeker.
(post is archived)