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

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts

Using their mathematical model, the authors demonstrated that banning hate content on a single platform aggravates online hate ecosystems and promotes the creation of clusters that are not detectable by platform policing (which the authors call ‘dark pools’), where hate content can thrive unchecked.

Oy Ve! The goy know but we have to stop shutting it down! They go places we don't control and organize!

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

And this is why there are so many shills

Policy 4 exploits the fact that many hate groups online have opposing views. The policy suggests that the platform administrators introduce an artificial group of users to encourage interactions between hate clusters that have opposing views, with a view to the hate clusters subsequently battling out their differences among themselves.

This article is full of gems. Makes you wonder where the terms "Qtard", "TD faggot" and "Voat Nazi" came from.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Yea, it's why the same people on every Voat post call everyone "jew" if they don't jewsperg hard enough. They change every discussion to "you're a jew", "no you're a jew"...

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Looks like it's time to put on the old strategy hat and start planning how to butcher this idea.

"Policy 1" can be eviscerated easily enough by having larger networks actively supporting smaller ones. If $platform\service bans $small\shitpost\forum, then $big\angry\network needs to actively take shits on the face of $platform\service, its management, and its investors. Attacking an "online hate group", regardless of its size, needs to become economic suicide.

"Policy 2" is best attacked through side-channel communication and a smaller scale application of counterstrategy one. If Jeff McShitposts gets banned from coolforums.com, he can post about it on angryrants.net, letting everyone know that Mike the Moderator is an unrepentant dog-botherer. From here, we can apply the first counterstrategy: make Mike nuclear and drive him into isolation (and hopefully death).

"Policy 3" could be called the "Reddit Strategy" - and it can best be countered by active, enthusiastic participation and eager, aggressive buy-in. If some organisation wants to fill its forum with shills, then the best thing one can do is help the process along. Run the forum into the ground, until all that remains is a massive leftist circlejerk, slowly costing its paymasters shekels for nothing. Then go make a new forum - servers are cheap - and keep hating.

"Policy 4" is defeated by No More Brother Wars, by accepting that the Enemy of my Enemy is, if nothing else, temporarily useful, and that we can all get back to fighting one another once the globalist elite are all swinging from some sturdy ropes. Furthermore, it can be helpful to remember that we don't all have to fight side by side, as long as we're all ultimately aimed at the same target.

Odium Invictus.