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

©2025 Poal.co

233

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).
[–] • 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?

[–] • 1 pt

Any POLICY, BY DEFINITION, polices speech.

POLICED speech is NOT FREE.

POAL claims it is free speech.

It is not.

Change the policy or change the statement.

[–] • 1 pt

If I drown out your voice with loud music, am I injuring your free speech?

Preaching an empty platitude doesn't make your case.

[–] • 1 pt

Freedom must allow for ALL use cases. Not just those is some POLICY.