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

©2025 Poal.co

276

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (111).
[–] • 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

Then it's not free.

[–] • 0 pt

Your dishonest revisionism is transparent.

Noteworthy you can't provide an example to support your dishonest position. Point taken.

[–] • 0 pt

But it's not?

[–] • 0 pt

When I have to read a policy then it sure as fuck is.

[–] • 0 pt

Name one place on this planet which ever provided your definition of 'free speech.'