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

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

The only thing it serves to accomplished used traditionally is to censor those you disagree with.

There is no perfect system but I think the way we do it here is better.

The only thing it serves to accomplished used traditionally is to censor those you disagree with. There is no perfect system but I think the way we do it here is better.

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

They want their alts, brigading and superusers back. It's that simple.

[–] • 1 pt

I think they just haven't really thought it through fully. They miss Voat and expect us to mold Poal to their liking but there is no pleasing everybody.

[–] • 2 pts

Yeah, like commiefornians they move in and immediately think they have the right to change the place.

[–] • 1 pt

Californians, sand niggers, afriniggers, take your pick.

[–] • 0 pt

I am a long time voat user. It had been explained many times. They know.

It's about control and censorship. They don't like to admit it. Dishonesty is common. Brigading and bot votes were extremely common. Especially every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. So as to push consensus cracking on the narrative of the day.

Don't kid yourself. They know it means less power and control and they hate it.

[–] • 1 pt

They've tried several times in the past and failed miserably.

Like used to say:

Not gonna happen.

[–] • 0 pt

Just admit it's a policed speech website.

I'm mad about the hypocrisy, not the POLICY.

[–] • 0 pt

I'm mad about the hypocrisy

Hypocrisy? lol

Go read the Welcome and User Guide pages.

[–] • 5 pts

Censorship is interfering with free speech. Down-voting doesn't do that.

[–] • 0 pt

It's exactly what it does. It's surpresas a voice simply because they are saying something you don't want them to say.

[–] • 3 pts

Does it stop someone from expressing themselves? Does it prevent others from reading the post? I don't see that happening. Didn't happen at Voat. A downvote doesn't delete a post or ban a user.

[–] • 0 pt

Even on voat it frequently collapsed comments; depending on access method. It also negatively shapes perception of future readers. In fact, frequently a -1 resulted in blind down votes by others. A common side effect of numbered, vote based systems. It also provides an excuse to prevent discussion ("not worth my time"). All of which are inversely related to the purpose and benefits of free speech.

[–] • 0 pt

That's just not true. Deplorablepoetry had negative ccp, his posting rate was then automatically throttled and limited. To me THAT is limiting free speech. Silencing those you disagree with.

[–] • 1 pt

How each individual uses the downvote is up to the individual.

Some use it to voice disapproval.

Here it is policed.

NOT FREE SPEECH.

[–] • 0 pt

Does limiting down votes prevent you from discussing and engaging with the people with whom you disagree?

If the answer is yes, please explain.

If the answer is no, then you are wrong and it is not effecting free speech.

Pretty reasonably it seems to force discussion and exchange of perceptions and ideas rather than squelch, limit, or hinder free speach? How is forcing you to participate in discussion, destroying or injuring your free speech?

[–] • 0 pt

Nothing about right to free speech guarantees the right to be listened to

[–] • 0 pt

Downvoting is a form of speech.

It is policed.

This is a policed speech website.

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

.... or free speech as in simply disagreeing.

[–] • 2 pts

So if you disagree, like articulate an actual reply?

Then collect upvotes if people agree.

Is that so very hard?

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

No it is not. Just don't understand this analness about this button. It is an option. If it is so debated then get rid of it.

[+] [deleted] • 2 pts
[–] • 1 pt

Fine.

Admit it's a policed speech website.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Show me one place on the planet which doesn't have "policed speech", based on your definition.

Here's a clue. All speech is policed. And you can still use the down vote, as free speech. But as with all speech, it may carry consequences. Those consequences are fairly defined and presumably equally applied.

What you're really saying is you want editorial control to censor others and that power without consequences. Your very platform is dishonest.

If you're demanding admission of truth from others, why not start first with yourself?

[–] • 0 pt

But it's not?

[–] • 3 pts

It's pretty gay we can't openly downvote known shills and spammers without risking account problems of our own. The ones kept under control on voat had to at least act normal half the time to keep their ability to spam bullshit. Here they run wild. I'm still giving usaconservative a dv every time I see his spam.

[–] • 2 pts

Yes but along with Voats system vame a whole host of problems all of it's own.

[–] • 0 pt

Did someone censor you by downvoating? Were you being subversive? Were you in a little skirt and asking for it?

[–] • 1 pt

OP was a fuckin obnoxious faggot back on Voat, so... Yes he was.

[–] • 0 pt

Voat was extremely fucked and shills ran rampant. Hell, shills ran their own subs so they could farm points with idiocy. I'm not sure how this supports your position.

[–] • 0 pt

I never said it was perfect. Do you believe this issue outweighs the positives?

[–] • 0 pt

Considering a legitimate issue hasn't been raised, IMOHO, your question answers itself.

[–] • 0 pt

One of the big problems is that the people on voat with 150,001 upvoats given specifically so they could have 150,000 downvoats for "shills". What is a shill you might ask? Anyone who says anything I don't agree with.

Spammers don't run wild here. Where are you finding someone telling you they make $66/hour online and you can too if you just click this link?

[–] • 0 pt

Usaconservative is active here.

[–] • 0 pt

I don't recognize the name. What is an example of his spam?

[–] • 1 pt

You're the one who's traditionally used!

[–] • 1 pt

A downvote is a form of speech.

I use it to voice my disapproval.

It is restricted.

Therefore my speech is not free.

[–] • 0 pt

All dogs have four legs.

My cat has four legs.

Therefore, my cat is a dog

[–] • 0 pt

Nonsense.

[–] • 0 pt

I suspect you're correct. I also suspect the upvotes to confirm that fact will be in your favor.

[–] • 1 pt

Thank you, this guy gets it.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

There's nothing wrong with censorship as long as you censor justly and for the common good. Like censoring sodomites, Jews, heretics, pagans, etc.

Tolerance is not a virtue.

[–] • 0 pt

TheAmerican was a prolific shitposting spammer on Voat and here Poal is defending him. Muh culture indeed.

[–] • 0 pt

Sorry but I have a lot of friends here.

[–] • 0 pt

I notice you didn't deny being a faggot spammer.

[–] • 0 pt

I haven't spammed anything here. Voat was different.