Just to clarify, if someone exposes their own shit it's forbidden to repeat it?

Kind of retarded to be honest. If someone uses their real ID for a username you maintain you're going to ban them?

Did you forget about the TexasVet self dox on voat.co? He did that on purpose to try to get me banned the second I repeated it.

Furthermore, WERE YOU NOT JUST PERSONALLY AFFECTED BY HAVING TO DEAL WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AT YOUR HOME AND THREATS OF DEPLATFORMING?

And WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THOSE ACCOUNTS?

You just made one a fucking mod, why didn't you ban both of them?

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 3:17 am Ok 2 issues:

MadWorld wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:28 am I think if someone knowingly provided personal info and shared it in public, it is a self-dox, take @TexasVet as an example. Users should be allowed to cite it, since it is the responsibility of that someone to not share personally identifiable info in public. But if some info got revealed, due to the nature of unknown setting, that info should be regarded as private and not a self-dox.

I don't want to be the arbitrator of whether it's a self-dox or not. Maybe someone got hacked, maybe they were misunderstood, maybe there's a gray area somewhere where A thinks they self-doxed and B thinks they didn't. Whatever. Don't share personal info about site members. The rule is simple and broad.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:18 am Furthermore, WERE YOU NOT JUST PERSONALLY AFFECTED BY HAVING TO DEAL WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AT YOUR HOME AND THREATS OF DEPLATFORMING?

And WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THOSE ACCOUNTS?

You just made one a fucking mod, why didn't you ban both of them?

I don't bear grudges, I try to treat people equally according to the circumstances regardless of history.

There's an informal unwritten rule here that if you mod a sub and haven't logged in "for a while" I'll allocate it to someone else, just because they asked. HOWEVER I do think I erred in that case because that user had not contributed to the sub. That's going to be another part of the informal unwritten just-made-it-up rule. I don't want to undo things because I made a mistake. They got away with it. I'll be more careful next time.

I'm trying to be nice here, work with me.

By your own standard, YOU SHOULD BAN YOURSELF with all that personal shit you done spilled a month back. You mean to tell me repeating what you voluntarily put out there would be a bannable offense?? Come the fuck on.

Don't give me that "unwritten rule" bullshit either. That's always been the doorway to censorship as we're seeing on ConPro right this moment. That just allows you to pick and choose what you want to enforce and when. As it stands it could be a made up name and location but it's still forbidden to even hint that it's someone or out comes the banhammer. "Simple and broad" yet not fucking defined, is it...

Legally speaking in any country, if someone puts it out there voluntarily, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. That's on their own dumbass, not the host of a web forum.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 5:17 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:51 am I'm trying to be nice here, work with me.

I appreciate that.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:51 am By your own standard, YOU SHOULD BAN YOURSELF with all that personal shit you done spilled a month back. You mean to tell me repeating what you voluntarily put out there would be a bannable offense?? Come the fuck on.

Heh, yeah... but I don't think anyone posted anything identifying me? I sure didn't. That would be what I call a "dox".

They knocked on your door, did they not? Obviously someone has it. They did the very thing you were worried about, then you turn around and "no hard feelings, bro!" And promoted one. Yet, you threaten the rest of us with a ban for even repeating information already out there.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:51 am Don't give me that "unwritten rule" bullshit either. That's always been the doorway to censorship as we're seeing on ConPro right this moment. That just allows you to pick and choose what you want to enforce and when. As it stands it could be a made up name and location but it's still forbidden to even hint that it's someone or out comes the banhammer. "Simple and broad" yet not fucking defined, is it...

Legally speaking in any country, if someone puts it out there voluntarily, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. That's on their own dumbass, not the host of a web forum.

Of course, you are correct. The application of rules here is entirely at my discretion. Whether that leads to censorship is a matter of personal opinion. If I had the time and the inclination I could put some work into codifying the Terms of Use here in more detail, for the avoidance of doubt.

But this isn't a dispute over the law of the land, it's a dispute over whether I am a fair and reasonable administrator. I do my best, I have my own principles, I hope that on balance it works out well. This isn't a democracy, it's a monarchy (or a dictatorship, if you prefer - I hope a benevolent one).

What's happening here is not about B4A, it's about fostering an understanding that the discussion of identifying information in general is not ok, for the comfort & wellbeing of all participants on an anonymous site.

I think you're proposing that the rule be amended to exclude self-doxing. I've made my case for keeping it as it is. It remains open for discussion.

Oh my so inclusive! What's next, political correctness? You best shut down SV then because God only knows how much personal information you're storing in that archive. What you're keeping "as is" is censorship, pure and simple. That shit had been posted in chat several times right in front of that pedo, why only now is it a problem?

Did anyone on fake voat get banned for posting it? Not one intervention by a self admitted censorship loving admin from what I can see. Even in his most hated topic he left it alone.

I had your back up until now, but this is some goal post moving bullshit. What's the point of supporting this place or any forum where you post under intimidation? Are you trying to pull a talk.loli? Look what happened to their traffic stats.

Or, was this part of your exit strategy? Turn on the user base and separate any sympathies while you go follow through with your threat? Similar to Putt's departure... That way you feel no guilt for hurting anyone knowing they won't miss you...

Have fun then.

CognitiveDissident5 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 9:08 am Just to clarify: an open pedophile can tell us his name, but we can't repeat it?

Yes or No?

His allegiance has been established, this with a guy that has (had) kids. Makes one question the validity of his sob story about losing them...

CognitiveDissident5 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:50 am

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:29 am No, you can't.

...as things stand currently. Open to debate.

Wow, why is it that every site owner enables and protects child molesters? I now doubt your story about having kids yourself and perhaps there are good reasons for access issues.
I never saw this coming in a million years. No wonder b4p referred to you as a friend.

On a side note, look at the utter hypocrisy. He goes from saying he's a dictator, this isn't a democracy - to its open for debate?

I don't know if it's even the same dude, maybe he really did kill himself. He's never been the power hungry type, let alone a pedophile sympathizer. In any case, he's no Puttitout.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:48 pm There's no doubt in my mind that B4A is a trouble maker. He may be a pedophile, I don't know. But I'm not going to bend the rule "because he deserves it".

It makes me sad that some users here (on both sides) have turned a dispute about applying a site rule into an "us vs. them" fight and then expect me to take one side or the other. I don't take sides. I just do my best to apply the rules fairly and impartially while being completely open with my reasoning, and welcoming debate. That's the best I can do.

> apply the rules fairly

What rules, you just make it up as you go along. A self dox is not a dox. The "best" you can do is act like a "dictator"? And you're willing to go down with the ship over a fucking jew pedophile?

Nah, on second thought, go catch that bus. Be sure to mention this on your next podcast...

Thisismyaccount wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 5:02 pm If anyone ever touched my granddaughter or any of my nieces, they wouldn't be standing in front of a judge and jury.

Perhaps that "power outage" and downtime was really jail time...

Like deleting my incriminating comments?

What a flat head kike.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 7:09 am What I'm thinking moving forward is that the self-doxer must explicitly indicate they are ok with being identified. Covers the cases you describe. B4A (is that the same as b4p?) hasn't done that. If you can persuade him to I'll probably reverse.

The issues with the talk.lol and voat.co posts in the archive are more problematic.

If they weren't okay with being identified THEY WOULDN'T HAVE POSTED THE SELF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE, WOULD THEY....

Schmuck.

[Image removed by admin]

[Redacted name] was a [redacted personal information] in [redacted location, dox warning] who said that [Redacted name - Rule 1. Stop it!] was the first [redacted personal information - do it again and you're banned unless you can ressurect them from the dead and get them to personally verify they are okay with their personal information being posted on SearchVoat].

The reason for this post is to mock what this site's admin has done to us. He protects a pedophile before protecting free speech. In his own admission he got caught in some shady shit and lost his kids, accused of abusing them. He deletes the screenshot where he said this himself.

Censorship and pedorasty has killed this site.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:13 am
...it wouldn't be cool to parachute into a sub and delete old posts. If you want a sub that doesn't have that content, create a new one.

Meanwhile, in chat:

antiliberalsociety • Mon Aug 29, 2022 5:49 pm

SearchVoat • Mon Aug 29, 2022 12:46 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022 12:28
And you're willing to go down with the ship over a fucking jew pedophile?

Yes, if that's what happens. But who's sinking the ship?

That original comment I made was deleted. No wonder he disabled the chat, he had to purge incriminating content - including Blumes pic.

antiliberalsociety • Mon Aug 29, 2022 5:57 pm
We can't delete our own shit. @SearchVoat did it. Look:

sguevar • Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:06 pm
likes this message
antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022 13:00
https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=60f8946901b84

He also deleted my comment proving a self dox isn't a dox.

MadWorld wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 5:38 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 7:09 am What I'm thinking moving forward is that the self-doxer must explicitly indicate they are ok with being identified. Covers the cases you describe. B4A (is that the same as b4p?) hasn't done that. If you can persuade him to I'll probably reverse.

The issues with the talk.lol and voat.co posts in the archive are more problematic.

The whole redefining "no doxxing of site members" to include self-dox, does it have to do with your own IRL identity being exposed, because of recent events? Maybe you are trying to reclaim your privacy, but the damage was already done. Normally, a user could choose to start over under a new username with some additional adjustment. This is not easy for an admin to do, especially on a small site (we could probably smell you from a mile away ).

If you have to redefine the rule to protect the stupid self-doxxers, with all due respect, how far are you willing to go to keep them "safe" from their own stupidity?

*ahem*

SearchVoat • Mon Aug 29, 2022 12:46 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022 12:28
And you're willing to go down with the ship over a fucking jew pedophile?

Yes, if that's what happens. But who's sinking the ship?

ahem*

SearchVoat • Mon Aug 29, 2022 12:46 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022 12:28
And you're willing to go down with the ship over a fucking jew pedophile?

Yes, if that's what happens. But who's sinking the ship?

Is all we needed to see. You deleted my comment but forgot you quoted it. I can't wait to hear about this on the next podcast.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:21 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:19 pm The whole redefining "no doxxing of site members" to include self-dox, does it have to do with your own IRL identity being exposed, because of recent events?

As far as I know, my IRL identity has not been exposed. AFAIK, the information available about me includes the fact that I have been suicidal (in the past; very far away from that place now Thank God) and that I live in NSW, Australia. If there's anything out there that identifies me in any other way I would appreciate it if you sent me a PM about it.

You didn't answer the question. Are you afraid of related details you yourself put out there coming back to bite you?

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:24 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:22 pm Are you willing to go as far as deleting or redacting those entries from the archive, in order to achieve that no-doxxing rule?

Yes. I will remove posts which include identifying info. In the last couple of days I have removed posts and chat messages which include a certain user's photograph, or first and last name.

Why did you delete chat messages that didn't include personal information?

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:23 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:05 pm

ahem*

Is all we needed to see. You deleted my comment but forgot you quoted it. I can't wait to hear about this on the next podcast.

I don't know which comment you say I deleted, this one? viewtopic.php?p=29570#p29570

No, the original comment of mine in the chat - the one you quoted.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:25 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:09 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:21 pm

As far as I know, my IRL identity has not been exposed. AFAIK, the information available about me includes the fact that I have been suicidal (in the past; very far away from that place now Thank God) and that I live in NSW, Australia. If there's anything out there that identifies me in any other way I would appreciate it if you sent me a PM about it.

You didn't answer the question. Are you afraid of related details you yourself put out there coming back to bite you?

Oh yes, sure. There are people who know me IRL who know I run SV. The dumbass stuff I posted a few weeks back has and will definitely cause me problems. But what does that have to do with doxing?

Your custom definition of the term Dox. You moved the goalposts pretty far and threatened the whole userbase with it. It looks suspiciously like you're just trying to cover your own ass regarding your child abuse confession.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:38 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:26 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:23 pm

I don't know which comment you say I deleted, this one? viewtopic.php?p=29570#p29570

No, the original comment of mine in the chat - the one you quoted.

I deleted a couple of messages in chat because they doxed a user. I don't recall quoting one but I may be mistaken. Unfortunately (unlike posts) chat messages can't be soft-deleted, so they've gone for good. Unless you have a screenshot? inb4 "very convenient"

Who needs a screenshot when you quoted the very comment that was deleted? There was no dox, this is you protecting a very famous pedophile from the Voat community. "I just didn't notice till nao" - now THAT is very convenient...

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:40 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:28 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:25 pm

Oh yes, sure. There are people who know me IRL who know I run SV. The dumbass stuff I posted a few weeks back has and will definitely cause me problems. But what does that have to do with doxing?

Your custom definition of the term Dox. You moved the goalposts pretty far and threatened the whole userbase with it. It looks suspiciously like you're just trying to cover your own ass regarding your child abuse confession.

1. The definition of dox, here and elsewhere, forever, has been "identifying information". There was none, as far as I remember, in those posts. No moving of goalposts.

2. What child abuse confession?

1. Your definition omits the part where personal information VOLUNTARILY UPLOADED TO THE INTERNET becomes public domain.

2. You know damn well what I'm talking about, you deleted it from the chat. The perfectly legal screenshot taken of your own confession post.

]antiliberalsociety • Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:11 pm
Oh look, bannable material...
User avatar
antiliberalsociety • Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:10 pm
Oh, look who's sub he decided to bless with his confession. Was it v/confessions?

Image

Do you really want to go there? I can post the link again, or is this a ban trap?

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:56 am Ok, I get it. Sorry for being slow, didn't know which message you were referring to.

Yes I deleted that screenshot for purely selfish reasons. No "rule" basis, nothing to do with doxing. I just don't want it falling into the wrong hands atm. You're perfectly entitled to post it, but I'd ask you as a favour not to. If you do, I'll probably delete it again. Can't justify it other than to say I'm in enough shit already and that post could cause me more.

That is not a favor, that is a threat. This is precisely why we think your moving the goal posts is selfishly motivated. You've shown your hand, we know what you hold.

What difference does it make at this point? You've already pissed away your entire life, you turned on the last remnants of the greatest free speech website around, and now you're resorting to censorship. It boils down to this:

Did you act honorably? Or did you act in your own self interest?

You admitted you'll scuttle this site for your own petty reasons, and those reasons were protecting the pedophile. This is not consistent with your demeanor thus far, it's rather abrupt. This indicates something happened and you were forced to act quickly. Now you're saying you're "in enough shit already" yet you're allowing the pedophile to roam free? Even protecting him from trolls (of which he's no stranger to dishing out himself) and your allegiance is now publicly visible.

So yes - I am forced to compare it to your confession in which you said your wife accused you of abusing your boys. So protecting the pedophile is a priority, but not upholding the free speech model that was the very essence of Voat, which is why you still have a userbase (or had). You're taking unfair shots at the userbase, threats of blanket bans of anyone that breaks your self interpreted rule, a very emotionally charged vow to make sure they "never come back again", and you're willing to shoah your entire site for it? Yeah, no. That doesn't pass any smell test. It's quite evident you've pulled some dirty shit in the past and you're deathly afraid it'll catch up to you even on here.

Your priorities are fucked. There's no denying that. But I come from a background of "get to the truth" because where there's smoke, there's fire. And you are NOT looking good right now. I will say this, you have demons in your closet trying to get out. It would behoove you to just go the way you went before and let this shit go, because karma can be a bitch as we've seen. BUT - after what you did, and are doing, it's too late. So you might as well pull a full on "system" and ban dissenters. Ban anyone that "insults" or "accuses" you of anything you don't like. But I will say this - despite his pissing away 75% of authentic users, you STILL don't have half the userbase fake voat does. What you had was small but authentic, it was bullet proof. Free speech sides with truth, and no enemy of ours could ever penetrate it. Until now - betrayal from within. No standing army can withstand treason.

If this site had a canary it's long dead. I think you know you're a piece of shit, you just can't hide it anymore and you're trying to snuff out any threats of it going public here - in your "one reason to go on". Welp, looks like we see just how valuable this really was to you.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:34 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:23 am Did you act honorably? Or did you act in your own self interest?...

With respect to the dox rule, that's me putting users first. With respect to the confessions screenshot, that's me acting in my own self interest. No justification other than that.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:23 am I am forced to compare it to your confession in which you said your wife accused you of abusing your boys.

I never said that. I said I didn't have access to them, and that's because of the police report about the confessions post. No-one has accused anyone of abuse.

Funny, that's not what the screenshot of YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS says. This is where your trustworthiness ended. I knew there was something fucky about that.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:07 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:01 am Funny, that's not what the screenshot of YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS says. This is where your trustworthiness ended. I knew there was something fucky about that.

PM it to me, let me see. I don't have a copy.

Oh I doubt that, it was YOUR post FFS and you deleted the pic from chat. Don't tell me you "don't have a copy".

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 4:58 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:23 am

So yes - I am forced to compare it to your confession in which you said your wife accused you of abusing your boys. It's quite evident you've pulled some dirty shit in the past and you're deathly afraid it'll catch up to you even on here.

Just 2 cents...

I don't recall SV ever saying he was accused by his wife of abusing the kids.

SV did confess to being an asshole, so maybe she accused him of that.

/2cents

EDIT: I was not privy to what was said on the pedo's NSFW subverse when the conversation was moved off of regular confessions sub.

The screenshot I have it on he keeps deleting. It's got dirt he's trying to hide and perfectly explains why he suddenly flipped to pedo protection and blatant censorship. He said he can only see his kids 2 hours at a time - which means CPS is involved.

That doesn't happen without cause.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 9:54 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 7:57 am The screenshot I have it on he keeps deleting. It's got dirt he's trying to hide and perfectly explains why he suddenly flipped to pedo protection and blatant censorship. He said he can only see his kids 2 hours at a time - which means CPS is involved.

Feel free to share it, just please don't post it publicly.

That's no longer up to you. It's going to make the rounds outside of here so people will know why you betrayed the very people supporting you.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 11:20 am Here. Let me know if you want tags. Don't make me regret this.

You admitted sacrificing this site for this sick perverted asshole and NOW you're worried about regret??

Your true colors are showing in a major way.

Edit:

Hmm, I wonder what would make a "dedicated" pizzagate contributer suddenly flip on her position to back a pedophile...

https://files.catbox.moe/wyzlqs.PNG

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:01 pm

Thisismyaccount wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 11:10 am Please hear me out peeps. I say give him his new sub he wants. BUT we all know what kind of shitbaggery he will post in it just to piss us off and speed up our departure from SVF.@SearchVoat should put a pedo tag on it so it doesn't show up on the front page and is hidden. What say members of SVF ? It's a compromise I know but the best I can think of. It should keep the peace between us on here and SearchVote can keep an eye on it and remove any offending submissions. What say you @SearchVoat?

Puttitout claimed he would scrub child related offending sexual content and when I reported a host of child rape, toddler rape, child sex trafficking loli nothing was ever done about. What would look like a still picture was actually a gang rape of a loli toddler if you moved your mouse around pic.
That's what it would take to really 'keep an eye out' for offending submissions and you lose a piece of your soul doing it. Closing the site was about the only way to deal with it once it takes hold. Loli porn is a pedo magnet subverse, gives a place to privately exchange cp and share links to cp. Fuck that. I'll vote with my feet. I had enough of pedo culture polluting up every space on the internet.

@SearchVoat

He's talking about exposing the pedos on the talk.lol site, that I nicknamed talk.loli because of their tolerance of them. He calls them loli pedos.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:15 pm

MadWorld wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 7:51 pm The concern was what would happen to existing data if the person decided to show up on SVF.

Hmm tricky. I think to be consistent I'd have to say it would be deleted [Edit: assuming you mean a red verified voat user who hasn't been active till now].

I consider the no-dox rule to be absolutely essential on a free speech site, because it protects all users so that they can feel free to say anything without it coming back to them IRL. It should be enforced rigorously. Considerations about "this guy deserves to be outed IRL because he's done so-and-so or he is a so-and-so" should always(?) come second.

You're trying to protect yourself, not all users. You moved the goal posts to include public domain as a dox.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:30 pm

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:01 pm Puttitout claimed he would scrub child related offending sexual content and when I reported a host of child rape, toddler rape, child sex trafficking loli nothing was ever done about. What would look like a still picture was actually a gang rape of a loli toddler if you moved your mouse around pic.
That's what it would take to really 'keep an eye out' for offending submissions and you lose a piece of your soul doing it. Closing the site was about the only way to deal with it once it takes hold. Loli porn is a pedo magnet subverse, gives a place to privately exchange cp and share links to cp. Fuck that. I'll vote with my feet. I had enough of pedo culture polluting up every space on the internet.

@SearchVoat

Yeah the whole thing sucks. It's the massive thorn in the side of any site that attempts to accommodate full-on free speech.

The original voat.co ToS said "You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors" which is now the rule here [Edit: apart from Pedo subs; no CP anywhere obviously].

My solution to the dichotomy between "free speech" and "pedo shit" is the Pedo subverse tag. At least that keeps that stuff off your feed, and gives the pedos a play area without nauseating the 99%. Even that compromise still absolutely repels many many users. For me, it's trade-off between true free speech and popularity. For now, at this point in my life, I consider true free speech to be an absolute priority.

You're a lying sack of shit. Least we forget:

https://files.catbox.moe/msycu4.jpg

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:14 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:01 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:30 pm

Yeah the whole thing sucks. It's the massive thorn in the side of any site that attempts to accommodate full-on free speech.

The original voat.co ToS said "You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors" which is now the rule here [Edit: apart from Pedo subs; no CP anywhere obviously].

My solution to the dichotomy between "free speech" and "pedo shit" is the Pedo subverse tag. At least that keeps that stuff off your feed, and gives the pedos a play area without nauseating the 99%. Even that compromise still absolutely repels many many users. For me, it's trade-off between true free speech and popularity. For now, at this point in my life, I consider true free speech to be an absolute priority.

You're a lying sack of shit. Least we forget:

https://files.catbox.moe/msycu4.jpg

The original voat.co ToS said "You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors" which is now the rule here [Edit: apart from Pedo subs; no CP anywhere obviously].

Wait, is that meant to read that cp is already allowed on the 'pedo playground' subs? Or just 'narrowly cp' is allowed? /s

CP is and always has been allowed in subs tagged "pedo" which (((Blume))) already has in his AnythingGoes sub. The same sub where @SearchVoat made his confession. I had to enable the pedo filter to see it.

The "hands up" photo was of girls in full frontal nudity from 12-16. He since cropped it so it doesn't show below the waste. That's what SV disagrees "narrowly" with, that it's CP.

I shit you not.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:32 pm

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:14 pm

The original voat.co ToS said "You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors" which is now the rule here [Edit: apart from Pedo subs; no CP anywhere obviously].

Wait, is that meant to read that cp is already allowed on the 'pedo playground' subs? Or just 'narrowly cp' is allowed? /s

No, I expressed that badly. There are 2 categories here: CP (which is obviously completely banned from the site) and "sexually suggestive material involving minors" (as it's expressed here) which is permitted, but only in subs tagged "Pedo".

"Sexually suggestive material involving minors" basically means legal pedo shit: loli drawings, non-sexual photos of naked underage girls (like the "hands up" photo), suggestive photos of clothed children, text stories about child sexual abuse, all that kind of stuff. It's US legal, so by my rule it's permitted here, even though 99% of users find it disgusting.

tl'dr Pedo shit is permitted (not outright CP of course), but as our ToS say, it is "content may not be posted outside forums tagged appropriately".

This right here:

It's US legal, so by my rule it's permitted here

is what makes you a lying hypocritical scum bag. You know what else is US legal?

Sharing personal information voluntarily uploaded to the internet.

But sexualization of kids is free speech...

SearchVoat wrote:I respect that opinion and disagree with it.

That's not opinion, that is a fact you fucking kike. If you try to sue someone for damages resulting from stalking/harassing someone based on the information they voluntarily provided, it's going to get dropped. You have no right to privacy when you're the one spilling your own shit. No one batted an eye to the pedophile that Cognitivedissident5 had a part in reporting that lead to his dox, capture, and conviction. By your standards you'd ban her for that, for protecting the kids he was abusing.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 11:42 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:43 pm This right here:

It's US legal, so by my rule it's permitted here

is what makes you a lying hypocritical scum bag. You know what else is US legal?

Sharing personal information voluntarily uploaded to the internet.

Ok, good point. Not everything that is US legal is permitted here. But I'm pretty sure sharing personal information, however acquired, is US legal too, so why any rules against doxxing at all?

If it's acquired through hacking or breaching data privacy (IE what @The_Venerable did to @fightknightHERO the kike that he is) then it should be disallowed. But the second they spill their own shit - it's on them. Just like your details are on you.

Your panic induced censorship didn't help your cause. You've lost all credibility and are no better than talk.loli now.

You're a bit too late for that. Anyone who stays here after what you did will lose credibility right along with you. I've destroyed people's arguments on ConsumeProduct with the simple fact that they frequent talk.loli. Anyone who asks I show them proof of what it stands for. They may be a bunch of plebbit tier mods, but at least there they have a no porn rule.

You did the same thing. You dropped your mask.

papaD wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 1:10 am

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 1:09 am

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 12:16 am

Your argument is persuasive. Let me think about that.

Hmm where to draw the line. What if I just have poor opsec? What if I post a picture of my backyard and some 4chan autist locates it like they did Shia LeBoeuf's flag? Still thinking...

heres the misdirect

Exactly. What if he's just a pedo that has been found out?

Thisismyaccount wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 11:54 am The one main question I have that no one else has asked after a week is why is he hiding and using a couple of his known alts on talk.lol ? After he doxed himself I think he has been receiving multiple threats to be honest. A few people have called him out on his alts. Last night a dormant account was activated on loli. Another possible alt account ? This is the kind shit he brings to any site. On the defunct "goatpen" site he was called out by a few sbbh members who described him as being gabara level weird. Personally I think he is scared shitless at this point. Karma is a wild animal and it's hungry. Hi shitbaggery is catching up to him or has caught up to him. This is all he brings to any site he shows up on.

He struck a (((deal))) to keep posting his kikery pedo shit and silence whistle blowers in return for not trolling SVF or using his confession SV made in his own sub. That's the only reason.

Oh my God and people got tired of my beef with TexasVet... Just eat cement already.

sguevar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 3:00 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 2:58 pm

sguevar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 2:54 pm Maybe I misread on one of your replies you tagged him and then she said that her husband wouldn't hit her, so I assumed they were the same man?? MB if not.

That stemmed from my assertion he's cucked. But, check this out:

the_old_ones wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:04 pm

that "smut" was evidence to bust a pedo. you tried to enable that pedo by preventing his unmasking by asking me to hide the evidence. fuck off and crawl back in your hole, pedo-enabler.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3474&p=11763&hilit=Harpy#p11763

He too had her pegged as a pedo enabler. That's twice she protected a pedo.

Ah ok they are not related just interactions from the past. My bad then.

I mentioned her "husband" (pronouns: (s)he, Mr(s). Subordinate) had to be cucked just based on her masculine demeanor. But that TOO afiliation is TOO funny, I could totally see her treating her husband that way

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 7:55 pm There will be an immediate change for the site-wide Terms of Service here:

4. No posting child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors

By way of explanation, I have been acting according to the principle that every human being is deserving of equal respect merely for the fact of being human.

I am now of the view that not every human being deserves that respect. In particular, those who act on their pedophiliac urges do not, in my opinion, deserve that right here. The sins of an active pedophile are far worse than murder, in my opinion.

Therefore I have decided to override the "anything US legal" principle here by excluding active pedophiliac content.

If anyone's interested, it was this post that helped me change my mind.

Is this to cover up the fact you legitimately said you'd go down with the ship to protect that pedophile's "personal info" and ban anyone repeating what he himself shared?

SearchVoat • Mon Aug 29, 2022 12:46 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022 12:28
And you're willing to go down with the ship over a fucking jew pedophile?

Yes, if that's what happens. But who's sinking the ship?

Inadvertently admitting he is a pedophile in the process?

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:44 am There's been a lot of activity on chat regarding personal details of a member of this site. I don't care how the information was found, nor how it was disseminated, nor any other circumstance for that matter. It's simply a direct breach of Rule 1.

I don't want to ban everyone in one go!

Stop it.

Or that you disagreed that his pic of underaged nude kids was CP? https://files.catbox.moe/msycu4.jpg

Or that you had to attack free speech to hide the fact you just outed yourself as pro pedophile after admitting you were accused of abusing your own two boys?

by SearchVoat » 30 Aug 2022 19:56
Yes I deleted that screenshot for purely selfish reasons. No "rule" basis, nothing to do with doxing. I just don't want it falling into the wrong hands atm. You're perfectly entitled to post it, but I'd ask you as a favour not to. If you do, I'll probably delete it again. Can't justify it other than to say I'm in enough shit already and that post could cause me more.

Even though doxxing has never included repeating information volunteered by said "victim"?

And after doing your bretheren a favor, he deleted his copy of your confession post and ceased all trolling of SearchVoat Forums on talk.loli, where he owns the sub MeanwhileOnSearchVoat?

https://www.talk.lol/viewpost.php?postid=62dd8df939829

And one of our top posters Cognitivedissident5 just nuked her account after donating money to you to keep this place alive, you said that was worth it to you?

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 8:40 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 8:38 pm And one of our top posters Cognitivedissident5 just nuked her account after donating money to you to keep this place alive, you said that was worth it to you?

THAT makes me very sad indeed. I really wish she hadn't done that.

I love your cherry picking. You knew this was coming. You stood by it. She spilled a bunch of personal shit to you in PM when you were going to kill yourself trying to support you, but like me she smelled a rat when you promoted the concern troll. Blame no one but yourself.

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 8:40 pm

MadWorld wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 5:32 pm

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 5:01 pm Then SV drove the abandoned bus into a foam factory for safe keeping and had the users in the pedo playground subs promise not to play with matches.

The kids were still inside the bus.

Oh Fuck!!

No need to panic, it makes it more accurate as the kids were the reason that bus existed in the first place, and he sacrificed them to save his own ass.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 8:53 pm

sguevar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 3:45 am I appreciate the reply and quotations, there is a lot to talk about here so I will try to be as concise as possible.

Likewise. I'll be very brief:

sguevar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 3:45 am I've been called x and y on those sites, from spic to beaner, to crhistcuck and so on and so forth. But they know that from me because I have willingly gave that information from me. That is also considered personal identifiable information.

I don't think of nationality or ethnicity or faith as necessarily being personally identifying, although the question does raise the issue of "how much information do you need about someone to uniquely identify them?"

sguevar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 3:45 am No one is calling to his job or even the managers of his social media to shut down his persona, or threatening to have him lose his work.

This has happened, but maybe not directly through voat; "cancel culture".

I'm still contemplating the issue of doxxing and I really appreciate your contribution here. Thank you.

By that logic, you support @The_Venerable divulging @fightknightHERO as an Israeli jew because it's not "personally" identifying...

You have higher priorities: AKA you're willing to betray whoever you have to in order to cover up your mistakes... I wouldn't say defending that pedophile did your family case a whole lot of good.

thermal_clips wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 10:00 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 7:55 pm There will be an immediate change for the site-wide Terms of Service here:

4. No posting child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors

By way of explanation, I have been acting according to the principle that every human being is deserving of equal respect merely for the fact of being human.

I am now of the view that not every human being deserves that respect. In particular, those who act on their pedophiliac urges do not, in my opinion, deserve that right here. The sins of an active pedophile are far worse than murder, in my opinion.

Therefore I have decided to override the "anything US legal" principle here by excluding active pedophiliac content.

If anyone's interested, it was this post that helped me change my mind.

Now get rid of the pedophile. He will only continue to post pedo filth with new attempts to justify it. Save yourself the game of pedo whack a mole. Get rid of blumen the pedophile.

He wouldn't shoah one of his bretheren. Check the chat, he's more inclined to ban his adversaries.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 9:00 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 8:43 pm Save this before his pedo buddy deletes

Ok final warning. Post that, or identify the guy once more, and you're banned.

The pic in question had zero identifying features to it. Not even a username.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 11:19 pm I should add that this issue isn't entirely resolved. The rule change just moves the goalposts. It might solve one problem but immediately raises two more:

1. If pedophilia is a special case, why not XXX?

2. What counts as "sexually suggestive"? I know it when I see it?

Keep ignoring my points, it's really helping your cause.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 2:24 am

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 2:21 am 4. No posting child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors
It's not rocket science.

Are pictures of my niece at her preschool graduation sexually suggestive? They might be, if you're perverted enough.

Are you allowed to be within 500 feet of said niece given your current charges and court order?

MadWorld wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:01 am

Thisismyaccount wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:03 am Those 2 photos he posted in chat had sexually suggestive captions though, let's not forget that. Or the "hands up" photo link that he posted on Aug 8th that you removed and warned him about. Having seen the stuff, he has posted on talk.lol firsthand he is not to be trusted. Our experience with him and his perversions has taught us to be wary of him.

The image of group nudity with minors in it is nothing to b4p. He finds this type of images all the time. Of course, it is not his fault that those images just come to him. /s

It's okay on [enter site] and it's legal in the US, so it should be okay here too amirite.

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 4:39 pm ...to keep the SVF's pedo playgrounds free and safe from illegal content and sharing of cp on the sly

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c3/60/5a/c360 ... search.jpg

SeachVoat wrote:Simple and broad

BareBackOpSec wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 5:16 am Last post for B4A here.

F

This is all very odd...

Unfortunately not yet. ConsumeProduct is run by plebbit mods, but they at least ban porn. If I was a tech head I'd have built one myself by now.

I'd rather have the ugly truth than a pretty lie. He did do us a favor by exposing our own admin as one of his kind, as disappointing and frustrating as that is. It's better to police our own than our enemies catching us with it. It was his reactions that gave his true allegiances away.

This is not a democracy. ...or a dictatorship if you will

But then he said it's based on US law? Where the majority speaks? Let's compare the pedo shit to the dox, shall we?

CP is "free speech" and gets its own safe space, complete with pedo tags. He was warned 3 times for pedo trolling, and it took months to get any movement to reconsider the rules on it.

ONE complaint from (((Blume))) and SV threatened the whole userbase with a ban - for merely REPEATING PUBLIC INFORMATION that (((Blume))) himself gave. Remember the "Sweet Grass" incident in which he gave his alt away by giving the same unique reference to location (((Blume))) did? I threw that in his face even back then (((Blume's))) response was "Come see me, I'll give you the 3 S treatment!"

But only one side was strictly enforced, a pic that had no proof was actually him - it was based on a name he gave that could still be fake. That's not even a 5th of the info @TexasVet gave out. No one referenced his location, IP, family, etc.

But if one were actually fair and unbiased - all rules would be enforced equally.

US law? Let's put it on trial. (((Blume))) accuses me of doxxing him, how do I plead?

I plead innocent, not "Not Guilty" because that insinuates you can't prove guilt nor can I prove innocence. But in this case, I can prove it.

Burden of proof is on the accuser. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - which this is a dictatorship right? Based on US law? I have a right to a fair trial. If banning is equal to a digital death sentence here, then I have appeals. Let's look at how it was handled:

Proof was immediately provided that showed (((Blume))) volunteered information that was private. Proof was ignored and deemed inadmissible despite its infallible credibility. That's the equivalent of a cop arresting you for drugs when it's legal to possess with a prescription, and despite showing him that prescription, he deems it still illegal and you get cited with a heavy fine, with a charge on your record, including one more charge and it's life in prison.

A public advisory is issued regarding the new law - which the majority of the populace disagrees with, and had no say in it. Plus - votes don't matter anymore.

Pedo shit is warned and warned and warned, and despite public outcry to outlaw it altogether, nothing is done but false promises.

Only after this bias is exposed, and the one acting as dictator is found to have committed the same offenses regarding public information - does he finally change the pedo rule and remove the pedo tags (which not even shady sites use those) BUT - no changes to the public information policy.

Does this model look like freedom loving leadership to you? What style of government acts this way?

Now if it was a legit trial, in order for me to be charged (warned with a ban) proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed. Where is it, the mere word of the known pedophile?

He reported to SV that "I can only assume" it was the glitch. Well, that's speculation. Inadmissible in a court. Plus even if that was the case, why am I on trial and not SV's negligence? Plus - (((Blume))) has to prove damage was incurred.

Where's the damage, or the verification he was actually doxxed? How do we know he isn't lying about that being his real name, or his pic which was a random google grab? Just because he's banned now doesn't mean this isn't a problem still.

That's where my investigation into all this began. That's when I remembered what SV himself did that put himself at risk, and why he moved the goalposts so hastily. It was enough motivation for him that sacrificing his userbase wasn't a concern; it was treated as the cost of doing business. "Soooo sorry to see you go but... Don't let the door hit you on the ass!"

Then he censored my posting this evidence which in court becomes public domain... A "Sorry, not sorry" admission.

@SearchVoat wanted me to ask direct questions and he promised to answer.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑03 Sep 2022 16:50
als your statements come thick and fast. I promise to answer a direct question if you want to pose one.

I gave him the link to this comment. He then said this:

@SearchVoat

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 10:17 pm als can't be bothered to back through your stuff, debate here if you want

He also said the following:

antiliberalsociety • 46 minutes ago
Apply that to pedophilia:

SearchVoat wrote: ↑03 Sep 2022 16:40
pd that's complex. do we blame them if it's not their fault they're like that? (i mean, obviously we DO, but should we, really?)

He's questioning if we should blame pedos if they can't help it...

Let.

That.

Sink.

In.

antiliberalsociety • Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:35 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑03 Sep 2022 16:32
ALS why are you obsessed with pedos? (jesus I'm starting to sound like b4a now)

@MadWorld be sure to archive this in case he "edits" the archive again

Yes, really.

FYI he gave his own location away 4 fucking years ago:

https://searchvoat.co/v/AskVoat/3033002/16759026

With repeated references to it

https://searchvoat.co/v/whatever/3319025/19626639

https://searchvoat.co/v/videos/3497663/21177635

https://searchvoat.co/v/whatever/3586988/21948032

https://searchvoat.co/v/whatever/3586988/21959512

https://searchvoat.co/v/pics/3182270/18256768

https://searchvoat.co/v/whatever/3317176/19571509

https://searchvoat.co/v/news/3407132/20402187

https://searchvoat.co/v/whatever/3615844/22178180

Now tell me again how the username MitchfromMontana was born from the glitch?

papaD wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:54 pm if so, sup niggerfaggots

think im here to stay for a bit seeing how this place recently became anti pedo, and sv doesnt seem like a cowardly chink like aojew.

Cowardly, no. But he did put that jew pedo ahead of the rest of us, and despite the ban continues to do so. Even after he's banned you're not allowed to post that pic, even with no info on it, despite zero confirmation it's actually him. Plus, if you argue your case and link to his past doxxes, you will have your proof removed with possible ban if you continue.

Yes, anti pedo now

Nothing you can do will change his censorship policy. He allowed for a pedo safe space by threatening the entire site with bans over a pedo's photo that was never proven to actually be his. He maintains he'll still enforce it even though he's not a user here anymore, which is a hint that the ban is temporary.

Due to supply and demand for free speech forums, I see a lot of so called pedo haters tolerating this shit. If it's not free speech, what do you have to lose? There's nothing here anymore but a sick currupt admin.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:42 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 6:05 pm which is a hint that the ban is temporary.

I don't do temporary bans and never will.

The ONLY thing you actually deny... How telling.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:44 pm

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:37 pm As I understand, @SearchVoat will remove information from old Voat archives if the user who originally posted it can verify their identity/relation to the acct in question

My question to @SearchVoat is if they will announce or confirm which users have asked for this to be done.

No

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:37 pm Specifically I'd like to know if any or the Admins, former Admins, or employees of Voat have requested to have any of their comments or posts removed or excluded from the archives?

Not saying

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:37 pm A secondary question is if this data is ever subpoenad by any court, does searchvoat intend to cooperate with law enforcement or pull a lavabit?

Will cooperate as far as I'm able

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:37 pm Lastly, do we have a warrant canary?

Not yet. Happy to provide.

This. Right. Here. Pay attention to this, any dedicated SearchVoat cucks out there still clinging to the fantasy that this place can "heal".

In the same breath he said a warrant canary would be a good idea, he's admitting he will rat you out to law enforcement and he will "Help in any way I can".

This coming from the guy who says pedo hate is "bs" and anyone that hates pedos must be a pedo themselves, and questions if we should be blaming them "if they can't help it".

This is the admin who threatened the entire user base with a ban to protect the Jew pedophile trolling his site...

The same admin with an open court case in which he lost his kids amid abuse accusations.

Do you see the picture yet?

With your background? Pedo please! A canary is only as good as it's owner's credibility. Well, we've seen the extent of your integrity, haven't we...

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 5:50 am Thanks for posting this and giving me the opportunity to explain my actions in redacting your chat messages, and my interpretation of the no-dox rule.

I explained my general position on doxxing in the "Dox drama" post: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=10092

As I re-read it, I realise once more that I have allowed ambiguity. I said "anything that can personally identify a user".

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:18 am ...the voat username was not explicitly referenced...

As you say in your post, your message didn't mention the user's username and therefore - maybe - it doesn't "personally identify" that particular user. If we were going to split hairs I might try to argue that their legal name surely does identify them... even if no one knows which username you're talking about.

Or I could simply restate the rule as it was phrased at Voat 1.0: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity... which doesn't seem to require that both real world and online identities are shared. (Others here have challenged the definition of the sensitive qualifier in that sentence.)

Let me take another shot at it: "You mustn't post publicly on this site any personally identifying information about a user of this site".

What's personally identifying information? Anything you could "reasonably reliably" use to find that person IRL. Photo, full name, home or work address etc. But where to draw the line?

What about just the name of the street they live on? That doesn't identify them, does it? Could be anyone on that street. Ok, so anything that might assist in personally identifying them. But that might include the fact that they are male or female - removing half the population from the pool of possible candidates would certainly assist in identifying them.

However carefully a rule or law is constructed it is almost always possible to imagine a hypothetical example for which its literal permission/prohibition differs from the "spirit" of the rule. Unfortunately there are plenty of website users here and elsewhere who take pleasure in imagining these hypothetical examples and presenting them as a "test" of an admin's "consistency" in applying the rules. It's tiresome.

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:18 am ...the moderator in question has not asked for the information to be removed...

Not necessary according to my interpretation. The fact that the user doesn't know (or maybe even doesn't care) that he has been doxxed doesn't affect the rule.

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:18 am ...the information is easily found (it became a meme on voat)...

Some online definitions of "doxxing", including Wikipedia's, state that the personal information must be previously private for it to constitute a true dox. Others do not. I don't.

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:18 am ...the moderator himself has repeatedly claimed that the dox information is incorrect.

Again, hard to use this is a justification. Many people claim many things. It doesn't mean the information is necessarily incorrect.

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:18 am I wasn't reposting it to dox anyone, but show the hypocrisy of B4A.

Motive is irrelevant. I cannot judge motivation.

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:18 am Nonetheless, it exposes the still blurry boundaries of what constitutes a dox. Essentially SV is now removing an alleged dox w/out any proof one way or the other. I'm assuming this is done to show zero tolerance and discourage doxxing behavior, but it cuts to the core of 'What is doxxing?'

This is exactly right. The boundaries of doxxing are blurry. I will interpret the rule broadly because I think it is more important to ban a dox when maybe it should have been permissible than to permit a dox when maybe it should have been banned.

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:18 am The username/alleged dox in question purports that the user used an abbreviated version of their legal name as their username. If this were true, under the current rules, a user could make a username that is their legal name. While it wouldn't be doxxing to tag their handle, it would be to type the same screenname without the "@"

This is one of those tricky hypotheticals I mentioned earlier. In fact it's probably covered by something below...

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:18 am Ultimately this demonstrates the self-dox standard should be the guideline determining whether a dox is actually a dox or self-promotion.

I cover self-doxxing briefly in the Dox drama post and provide more of my reasoning in this comment below it. I haven't seen anyone here agree with my position on self-doxxing. I'm still not sure why it's so important for people to be allowed to post someone else's self-dox info. I think it might be a kind of impotence - I hate that guy and I'm frustrated that no one knows who he is, I want the Real World to know what a shit he is. But maybe he's only a shit online and he's a respectable family man IRL? Maybe your belief in his "criminality" is mistaken? ALS accuses everyone of being a pedophile. I know for a fact that he can be mistaken.

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:18 am Another example that I'm not posting until rules are clarified is a user that has a screenname that they share with a youtube acct they've cross promoted that prominantly bears their legal name. They also repeatedly linked their personal blog and stated they were the author of said blog.

Whether the user explicitly stated they are comfortable with their info being shared, that was the clear purpose of their account. Yet to do a post about this user and their criminal activity would be a "dox" under current admin's policies.

Now this will really blow your mind: if the rule is You mustn't post publicly on this site any personally identifying information about a user of this site, as it is currently, and it's strictly enforced, then you can't even post identifying information about yourself. The only way this guy can cross promote a site that reveals his real name is to post the self-doxing declaration that I describe in the Dox drama post.

Savesequim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:18 am ...this user and their criminal activity...

You can post about the user and his alleged criminal activity, but you can't post his real name or anything else that identifies him. That may be frustrating but it's the rule. If you want him punished for his behaviour send the evidence to the cops.

EDIT: All of this remains open to debate. I have no difficulty in admitting I am wrong if I can be so convinced. See for example the recent rule change.

Never go full Blume

SearchVoat wrote:ALS accuses everyone of being a pedophile

I think you hit every point in that Jewish pedo's playbook. You threatened anti pedos, called pedo hate "bs", you asked if we should blame them "if they can't help it", called anti pedos pedos themselves, called me "obsessed with pedos", almost as if he's coaching you on his troll tactics.

Tell me, Mr. I know for a fact he can be mistaken, as long and loud as my clash with @TexasVet was, did I ever once accuse him of being a pedo?

https://files.catbox.moe/l2fgjp.jpg

Thisismyaccount wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 9:23 pm I have come to a decision today about the situation with als and cd5. He is persona non gratta now. His baseless accusations of child abuse and supporting a pedo and calling SV a pedo have pushed me over the edge. The time has come to block him and not respond to his accusations and his schizo rantings of trying to ruin this site anymore. So now he is blocked permanently. I WILL NOT self-nuke my account. All I said last weekend was I wanted to see the community heal and to help either rebuild this forum or continue on the way it is. The only one causing problems on here is als. He won't be happy until this forum is destroyed. You guys can do what you think is best for you. I hope to start contributing again at some point time but, I will sign in at times and look forward to your submissions. They can be enlightening, and some are very funny and make me smile and laugh. The weekend is here, and I am looking forward to seeing my grandchildren again. Take care my friends and have a good weekend.

What a fucking crybaby. You cucked immediately the second the admin started threatening the entire fucking userbase to protect that jew pedo piece of shit, the very one you yourself couldn't handle. You got called on being a cuck, you cried and tantrumed like a cuck, and now you're virtue signalling the rest to follow suit. And you're supposed to be a military veteran?

No wonder Canada is so cucked. If you are any indicator as to what's defending your country, you're just as fucked as the US. Way to defend your principles, dipshit. I only posted the very words of SV himself ya dumb cunt, but you want to turn a blind eye. Gee I wonder what else you turned a blind eye to in the military... All this for what, a dead fucking forum that no one goes to? You have what, 4-5 contributors at best during it's peak? Now it's down to those who want to ignore what SV did to us, and those sticking it out to see what happens next. There is no "healing", there is no "rebuilding". You're literally in the house of a pedophile who done dropped his mask. I'm not letting this one go, he shit all over the Voat label while representing it - he's fired. I will point out his ugly truths as I see fit. You don't like it?

DELETE YOUR FUCKING ACCOUNTS! I mean it, go somewhere else!

Wait... There's something very familiar about this...

Meh. Wake me when he catches the bus.

Hmm I thought you blocked me @Thisismyaccount

Pedo enabling cuck

Keep laughing at your 30+ year old jokes, eh?

Your perverse usage of the Indicates you're deluding yourself and need this as a safe space.

> supporting this site

So morally superior!

...as you suck up to a pedo admin.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:29 pm you still here pedoboy?

Answer to this dox.

thermal_clips wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:38 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:30 pm

thermal_clips wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:27 pm

ALS you were invited on to give your take, I will note you chickened out and therefore forfeit the opportunity you had to rep your side of the argument. Crying about it after the fact is cringe and gay.

What are you, his body guard? This podcast is guilty of a dox per his own rules. As I stated, consistent rule enforcement test

The podcast isn't affiliated with svf, we do as we please, nigga.

Neither is catbox, but he still enforces the dox rule regardless of host, doesn't he...

thermal_clips wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:56 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:46 pm

thermal_clips wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:38 pm
The podcast isn't affiliated with svf, we do as we please, nigga.

Neither is catbox, but he still enforces the dox rule regardless of host, doesn't he...

Not my problem.

Quit making this about you, pedo loving faggot.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:44 am There's been a lot of activity on chat regarding personal details of a member of this site. I don't care how the information was found, nor how it was disseminated, nor any other circumstance for that matter. It's simply a direct breach of Rule 1.

I don't want to ban everyone in one go!

Stop it.

@SearchVoat seems pretty quiet all of the sudden, cat got yer tongue?

Still waiting...

FeathersMcGraw wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 12:39 pm How true. And it sucks

Answer the dox post.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:00 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 1:29 pm

FeathersMcGraw wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 12:39 pm How true. And it sucks

Answer the dox post.

You still here pedoguy?

Yes. Answer to the dox post.

I knew you'd be running and hiding.

Meanwhile keep contributing to the domain of a pedo enabler.

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:38 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:19 am Meanwhile keep contributing to the domain of a pedo enabler.

I haven't been contributing.

HowItsMade begs to differ.

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 7:03 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:49 am

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:38 am

I haven't been contributing.

HowItsMade begs to differ.

FFS are you policing this fucking site?

Actions speak louder than words, I just pay attention. Don't say you aren't contributing if you have posts up for all to see.

I bet you read his though, pedo enabler. @Crensch is right, you're a footnote chihuahua that won't stop yapping

Meanwhile in the archives:

SearchVoat • Sat Sep 03, 2022 2:54 pm
ALS sometimes you do get me thinking though. I wonder if I do have a mask...

SearchVoat • Sat Sep 03, 2022 12:48 pm
It's how the law works by the way, you don't convict someone for something that's not against the law because we use our fucking brain and anyway the guy deserves it. Or at least that's how it's supposed to be

Except when the law is made by you, and you can censor at will with impunity, right? You said this defending that Jewish pedophile.

SearchVoat • Sat Sep 03, 2022 12:43 pm

thermal_clips wrote: ↑03 Sep 2022 12:43
wew look at all this bullshit strife and drama that could have been avoided by simply yeeting the pedo on sight

More important to follow the rules, even if they're "wrong", than bend them for individual cases.

Hmm, like in Announcements?

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:28 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 11:35 am

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 7:03 am

FFS are you policing this fucking site?

Actions speak louder than words, I just pay attention. Don't say you aren't contributing if you have posts up for all to see.

Anyone who knows the type of content that really matters for me to post under normal circumstances, can see that I have not been posting (speaking out against the trans grooming and mutilation of kids is one of the most common subjects I would post about on Clownworld all the time.) Recent posts of mine aren't really intended to 'contribute', I'm really not posting my free speech (aside from this response) as I would normally before. My posts do reflect a way for me to deal with the sadness I feel over the final days of the last outpost of goats. That's my qualifier officer.

That is depressing indeed, and very accurate. @SearchVoat killed us instead of himself, proof is in his troll post in v/Announcements where he banned me without cause. Funny thing is, the last time this happened was on Ruqqus and the admins turned out to be jews

So I posted my response here viewtopic.php?f=41&t=10233&p=30180#p30180

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:37 pm Banning you from Announcements wasn't to prevent you "calling out" anything. You're posting here without any problem. It's just nice to have a place where I can post, and others can respond, without you shitting all over the place. Mods have always been able to ban users from their subs without giving a reason. There are no specific subverse rules.

Yet we can't ban unless YOU give your blessing. And guess what? You never banned Blume from my subs when I requested it. I also like how you locked the ban list so I couldn't point that out.

viewtopic.php?p=30190#p30190

You fear free speech because free speech threatens your freedom.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:00 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:48 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:41 pm Yet we can't ban unless YOU give your blessing. And guess what? You never banned Blume from my subs when I requested it.

I will always "give my blessing". I don't recall refusing your request. Please quote me if so, and I will apologise.

Wait, I found it in a PM:

antiliberalsociety wrote:Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:29 pm Can you please ban the following:

Blumen4alles

Barebackopsec

TROI_MARRIES_RIKER

ni-ju_nana

From my subs:

CommunismIsJewish

HitlerWasRight

HitlersGermany

JewMedia

MeanwhileOn

MemoryHole

You are correct, I was wrong. I don't recall why I didn't implement the bans. I'm sorry for not doing so, and I'm sorry for doubting your claim in this case.

Realllllly fucking convenient...

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:26 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:24 am Your continuation to evade this dox report is rather concerning. You are going back on your policy, yes?

tlolocaust isn't SVF.

Neither is catbox or the SV archive, numb nuts.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:44 am There's been a lot of activity on chat regarding personal details of a member of this site. I don't care how the information was found, nor how it was disseminated, nor any other circumstance for that matter. It's simply a direct breach of Rule 1.

I don't want to ban everyone in one go!

Stop it.

Re: The smoke drifts away from the battleground
1 Report
Post by SearchVoat » 16 Sep 2022 17:14
SearchVoat wrote: ↑16 Sep 2022 05:00
I just attached a bot to his chat posts (I think of it as a user flair) and banned him from replying to posts here in v/Announcements.
Ok I made my point. Enough with the bot.

Exactly what was your point, other than a vulgar display of admin power? You really didn't do yourself any favors by sinking to the likes of AOU tricks.

You can address the fact that it was a dox by your own standards, complete with multiple sources of proof (your own words), and explain how that doesn't violate your custom definition of dox.

The rest you can address bullet point by bullet point, as I did for your post that you had to censor me from replying to directly.

He calls me paranoid, then when I test him he falls right into it. He's reading all our PMs.

@MadWorld

https://files.catbox.moe/e57iir.jpg

He blames the site for his own snooping... Then wants US to resolve it for him.

This is NOT the original SV, this is a completely different persona altogether.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:33 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:05 am You can address the fact that it was a dox by your own standards, complete with multiple sources of proof (your own words), and explain how that doesn't violate your custom definition of dox.

Which dox - the b4a dox here that I disallowed, or the mention on tlolocaust?

Don't play stupid.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:52 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:49 am Don't play stupid.

It's a simple question. Don't assume I'm playing games. Makes you sound paranoid.

Why don't you enforce your own rule? Now that's a pretty simple question. Go back to reading people's private messages.

> paranoid

https://files.catbox.moe/e57iir.jpg Yup, it's all in your mind, goyim!

Savesequim wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:10 am Always assumed this was the case but interesting.

The new persona thing I disagree with. I think you've just pushed him past the point of impartiality and he's responding more heavy handedly

Why do you think he's literally a different person?

P.s. the admin is no longer the admin takes make me miss sanegoat. I hope he's still butting heads somewhere

I would have had nothing to "push" if he hadn't come out with all the drama his own damn self. That is not even close to SV's MO.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:22 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:05 am > paranoid

[img]https://files.catbox.moe/e57iir.jpg[/img Yup, it's all in your mind, goyim!

Thanks for posting that, I mean it. It's an important issue that most people probably don't think about. You and @kestrel9 obviously didn't for a while.

Edit: btw working on it here and here.

Oh, make no mistake I had no doubt you snoop through everyone's shit - but we just had a problem with Arete and the admin betraying the userbase's trust via data privacy breaching. ConPro at least has a disclaimer before you send a PM that it isn't private. This is some shady shit you're up to, you act like it's a functionality problem when you're the one that went looking. So, here we are, ONCE AGAIN YOU BETRAYED YOUR USERBASE and you have the balls to call me paranoid, and all kinds of other ad hominems to deflect from your fuckery.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:20 am

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:33 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:05 am You can address the fact that it was a dox by your own standards, complete with multiple sources of proof (your own words), and explain how that doesn't violate your custom definition of dox.

Which dox - the b4a dox here that I disallowed, or the mention on tlolocaust?

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:05 am Why don't you enforce your own rule? Now that's a pretty simple question. Go back to reading people's private messages.

Sounds like you're talking about the second one then. Why be so obtuse?

As I said to @MadWorld in chat earlier, yes to be consistent I should probably block the link to the tloloc. Or allow doxing outright.

The options as I see them are these:

1. Allow doxing without limitation. Everyone's responsible for their own opsec.

2. Allow "self-doxing" without limitation, but ban non-self-doxing, i.e. the common rule elsewhere. Then it depends on your definition of "self dox". If someone's revealed the info by mistake, you seem to think that's a self-dox and fair game. In which case, why ban doxxing at all? Let people be responsible for their own opsec.

3. Ban doxxing here, but allow links to doxes elsewhere e.g. the tloloc link, links to SV archive, catbox etc. I'm inclined to think it's different whether the info is displayed here explicitly (e.g. as text or embedded image) or you have to follow the link to find it (e.g. tloloc, SV archive). But in reality a link here that says "follow this link for dox on [username]..." might as well be explicit.

4. Ban doxxing here and links to doxes elsewhere. Very hard to police (I can imagine a link to a google search which shows someone's dox at the bottom of the page, or on page 2). Would ban some links to SV archive (which, by the way, I see as separate from SVF and obviously not subject to the same rules) and other sites. It comes down to what "hosting information" means. We know SVF would be in trouble for "hosting CP" even if it was just a link to a catbox image.

That's where I am currently. If you want to contribute to this discussion I would encourage you to do it sensibly, civilly and helpfully. Right now you're being even more of a dick than I am. But if it helps you feel good about yourself to carry on like that then go for it.

I just cut through your bullshit. You're full of shit by calling it a dox because it's based off of his own submissions. This you putting wheels on the goalposts. I posted all your own words specifying that it's a violation to link to any personal information regarding a user's real identity and you're dancing with the stars trying to avoid answering for it. Now you're onto arguing semantics. This isn't helping your case playing games. You're proving me right with every dodge, every troll bot (flair), every ban, and every ad hominem you muster up.

Face it. You were wrong to move the goalposts and that's why you're playing hot potato trying to answer for it. Why is it though, before April this drama was non existent on here?

Coming soon: End to end encryption of PMs

Post by SearchVoat » 16 Sep 2022 22:19
Every one of these Voat-like sites (afaik) lets admins read your PMs if they want. Not good enough.

Coming soon to SVF: end to end encrytion of PMs using OpenPGP.js.

Because I care about my users.

Funny you didn't think of this before I set a trap and watched you fall right into it.

Because you care about us...

MadWorld wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:12 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:44 am

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:22 am

Thanks for posting that, I mean it. It's an important issue that most people probably don't think about. You and @kestrel9 obviously didn't for a while.

Edit: btw working on it here and here.

Oh, make no mistake I had no doubt you snoop through everyone's shit - but we just had a problem with Arete and the admin betraying the userbase's trust via data privacy breaching. ConPro at least has a disclaimer before you send a PM that it isn't private. This is some shady shit you're up to, you act like it's a functionality problem when you're the one that went looking. So, here we are, ONCE AGAIN YOU BETRAYED YOUR USERBASE and you have the balls to call me paranoid, and all kinds of other ad hominems to deflect from your fuckery.

I kind of expect that shit to happen. But had not come to mind on SVF before this drama. An E2EE would be nice, but that is not the root of problem(s). The main problem lies in the integrity of a site's admin. Voat.co never had this problem, as far as I could tell, and it did not have any encryption for PM. I never heard of Putt snooping at PMs because he could. For what it was worth, Putt got a lot of shit thrown at him, just for looking up downvoaters in his submission. When SV said E2EE would remove his temptation to read user's PMs, what would stop him from looking up other private details because of his temptation? What could go wrong with a self-declared dictator, if you will, driven by temptation, to do things because he can and not because they are right or wrong or violating a certain principle? A site's admin can operate in god mode at will. There is no amount of encryption that can fix privacy issue with an admin who wants to look up user's private details.

Principles!! What a funny word. SV spoke of upholding his personal principles. He would not bend to violate his own principles. I just hope that looking up PMs, because he can, is not one of them, and that it was a bad joke gone wrong.

Oh hold on now, principles is what he says stops him from "giving me the flick" altogether! So he's got some! (coughs-notfromAnnouncementstho-coughs)

Edit: You're going to have to stick to one point at a time, it's too boring to respond to!

And for all the cucks lurking that don't want to oppose your glorious leader...

https://i.imgflip.com/6tq8vu.gif

MadWorld wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:32 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:47 am He calls me paranoid, then when I test him he falls right into it. He's reading all our PMs.

@MadWorld

https://files.catbox.moe/e57iir.jpg

He blames the site for his own snooping... Then wants US to resolve it for him.

This is NOT the original SV, this is a completely different persona altogether.

Wait, I am kind of slow today. Are you saying that SV has already read the PM between you and @kestrel9? And SV responded to your PM in another PM?

He quoted in greentext > the quoted private message from me to @kestrel9 warning him I knew he was reading our PMs. He responded in a PM to both of us, which is the image, "well d'uh" in a most humble and diplomatic way. What a guy!

Sent: 16 Sep 2022 21:28
From: kestrel9
Recipient: antiliberalsociety
I figured as much.

That was his reply. @SearchVoat sent this using the same subject line kestrel9 had used sending me a PM. I showed this to CD5, she's very glad she nuked.

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:44 pm For community support and counseling

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com ... f=1&nofb=1
Note: Patient Confidentiality does not apply

Is that... the real guy?

That's a dox.

chrimony wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:42 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:20 am The options as I see them are these:

1. Allow doxing without limitation. Everyone's responsible for their own opsec.

I'm already on record of supporting this. It actually aligns with the 1st Amendment, and it's the simplest policy. But it doesn't really matter -- you're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point.

If you want to contribute to this discussion I would encourage you to do it sensibly, civilly and helpfully. Right now you're being even more of a dick than I am.

Dude, you went from defending pedo (((blumen))) out of principle (which I actually have no problem with, as I do believe in principles) to banning blumen for posting a harmless video of a child with a horse, as I understand it, after you lose one of the few remaining members. Then you ban ALS from Announcements (something AOU did to me when I criticized his shitty policies), to attaching "flair" to ALS's chat (AOU infamous for attaching "flair" to users), to READING PERSONAL MESSAGES.

At this point, I'm only here for the drama. The forum itself is dead, and its been obvious to me for some time that admins are always the weak points in "free speech" sites. Only decentralized forums where users decide what they see can be a true free speech forum.

From your comment on talk.loli:

[ - ] chrimony 5 points 1 day ago (+5/-0)

" He only sticks around to drive remaining users away & taunt you until you ban him from the site completely so he can cry about it."


"remaining users" is right. What you don't mention is that CognitiveDissident5, one of the few hardcore members of the forum, deleted their account after you were protected from being "doxxed" when you self-doxxed yourself on another site. The SearchVoat admin threatened to ban anybody that exposed (((you))).

After essentially collapsing the forum to protect you, in a hail mary the admin suddenly sees the light and you get the ban. Now the only content left is the usual ALS drum beat. You and ALS are two sides of the same coin. Both forum destroyers.

Why do you equate me to that pedophile? I'm not the one destroying the boards, I'm the one pointing out the shit that will lead to its demise. You're blaming the messenger.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:54 pm

chrimony wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:42 pm

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:20 am 1. Allow doxing without limitation. Everyone's responsible for their own opsec.

I'm already on record of supporting this. It actually aligns with the 1st Amendment, and it's the simplest policy.

Yeah I'm leaning that way as well.

chrimony wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:42 pm At this point, I'm only here for the drama. The forum itself is dead, and its been obvious to me for some time that admins are always the weak points in "free speech" sites. Only decentralized forums where users decide what they see can be a true free speech forum.

Yes I agree 100% about admins being the weak point.

Through all of this I have been trying to address that weakness, by struggling to develop rules relatively free from the personal bias of the individual, and by revealing everything about my throught processes as I operate here. Disclosing that I have viewed PMs (have been entirely uninterested in them until the drama of the last couple of weeks, by the way - but the fact remains that they are not "private" to an admin) was a choice based on that principle of openness. But I fully understand that many people will see disclosing that breach of trust as worse than doing it secretly, which I'm sure is common on sites like this.

(btw the site is not dead - just resting)

Oy vey! I'm such a victim!

> Benevolent dictator

https://i.imgflip.com/6trk9w.jpg

chrimony wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 11:29 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:18 pm Why do you equate me to that pedophile? I'm not the one destroying the boards, I'm the one pointing out the shit that will lead to its demise. You're blaming the messenger.

Because you take your crusading to extreme levels. blumen is willing to tear down a forum by prancing on the line of banning, and you're willing to go to war against admins and users if they aren't willing to ban guys like blumen. You've made enemies of even people who used to be your allies.

Anyone willing to protect Weimar shit is no ally. I go to war to expose the truth when they get up to dirty shit that undermines what free speech, and freedom as a whole stands for. I see shit before anyone else does, and I put a name on it. You think it's an accident people know Blume's a pedo, and TexasVet is a fraud? You think it's an accident the Ruqqus admins pulled a shoah right as I said they would?

I never once called for Blume's ban - only pedo shit. If that causes a meltdown in the admin/userbase relationship - the problem is a lot bigger than I am. Anyone with a fucking conscience should know that.

Why? You have an admin that threatened the entire userbase to protect a jew pedo, deleted chat entries to cover his ass, runs and hides when pressed about it, resorts to censorship to silence dissent, and was just caught reading people's PMs and gloats about it.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nZ1QEI-OmWc https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/ ... -tease.jpg

https://youtube.com/watch?v=p0xy-LoDi94

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZezhUkOSk&ab_channel=PearljamVEVO

https://youtube.com/watch?v=pf37ulEG3rM

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-p1z2D-A4iY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJBpitCHKWg&ab_channel=Engl5003PopCulture

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 9:01 pm

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:34 am Then and Now https://searchvoat.co/v/pics/2733942 oh the irony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYnNj4hLXD8&t=21s

This post was already downvoted once by the same person who created the linked original post. Clearly a sloppy oversight. But since it does fit the topic of this OP (free speech, freedom of speech and posing the question of how the latter mediates the former) I wanted to check out another very old post https://searchvoat.co/v/AskVoat/1241858

It brings up Reddit, Voat, spam in how it creates a need for Mods.

antiliberalsociety 6.1 years ago

What I saw on Reddit was a brigade of panty wadders crying about abuse, offensivity, etc. And what resulted was a mass promoting of new mods to "help" with the widespread "problem". Over the course of time it lead to attitudes, power trips, then an all out political silencing of any opposition. I'm aware of the trolls that came over to make Voat look like a safe house for racists & hate groups, but it just looks like another tactic. Hopefully I'm wrong, if it stays low scale it should be fine.

You know what else I saw on reddit? CP being used to invoke heavier moderator presence; and look at them now... You seem to "sloppy oversight" yourself when forgetting to mention that this site's admin sided with the pedophile over the rest of us. Banning after the fact doesn't erase that. You cucked to a pedo sympathizer, one whom also lost his own kids in court - what a cohencidence huh?

What part of pedophilia doesn't strike you as fucked up? You think there's humor to be found?

@Thisismyaccount and @doginventer seem to disagree that child abuse is wrong

TIL hunting pedos sets you off Isn't it funny that you call ME a psychopath when that's exactly what cost you your kids

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:33 am Yep. It's exactly the pattern ALS displays.

The final straw came when a leading member was exposed by a rival group as a predatory paedophile himself, throwing the group into chaos.

That's why I'm very worried about the possibility that ALS is an active pedophile himself. I'm not playing games here. If I'm right, there are children being ruined by this guy right now.

https://files.catbox.moe/msycu4.jpg

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:41 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:56 pm TIL hunting pedos sets you off Isn't it funny that you call ME a psychopath when that's exactly what cost you your kids

You're a pathological liar, and probably possessed by demons

Go face your inner barn and stop virtue signaling over the "hurr durr but I'm a respected pedo hunter' which is your excuse for preying on people who don't have anything to do with the pervs you sex chat with. Did you read the article I posted? Have you submitted to a background check Mr. Wonderful? Your background is squeaky clean and you only care about kids, is that the story we're supposed to assume?

Do I make you nervous?

https://files.catbox.moe/msycu4.jpg

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:34 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:56 pm

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 9:01 pm

This post was already downvoted once by the same person who created the linked original post. Clearly a sloppy oversight. But since it does fit the topic of this OP (free speech, freedom of speech and posing the question of how the latter mediates the former) I wanted to check out another very old post https://searchvoat.co/v/AskVoat/1241858

It brings up Reddit, Voat, spam in how it creates a need for Mods.

You know what else I saw on reddit? CP being used to invoke heavier moderator presence; and look at them now... You seem to "sloppy oversight" yourself when forgetting to mention that this site's admin sided with the pedophile over the rest of us. Banning after the fact doesn't erase that. You cucked to a pedo sympathizer, one whom also lost his own kids in court - what a cohencidence huh?

"Heavier mod presence" what a joke, you brag about shutting forums down. FWIW in the case of 'this site's admin', his autist self didn't believe the pedo was a pedo, so technically, in his mind, he was not siding with a pedo over everyone else. In case you hadn't noticed his sporadically impaired judgement on how he comes off to people, or in other instances of just not caring (not unusual for autists), you claiming to staying butthurt over it, in light of how you treat people and are aware of what you intentionally do to hurt them, is rich! He's not a pedo sympathizer if he never believed the person to be a pedo. When I presented him with the logic of a zero tolerance over the issues of free speech, 'the site admin' choose the zero tolerance and publicly renounced pedophiles.

"In his mind, he believed it."

Who else uses that tactic?

Keep talking to yourself, really makes you look like you're not going to bat for a pedo admin.

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:15 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:50 pm What part of pedophilia doesn't strike you as fucked up? You think there's humor to be found?

Quit with your Teflon shield of supposedly caring about pedos, it's really about your sick self and always has been. But it's true you don't understand what humor is, your idea of humor is thinking it's funny to prey on innocent family members (cute females preferred) and try to ruin relationships and reputations of them. Collateral damage is how I imagine you justify it. You think it's funny for people to be afraid of your online psychopathic persona.

Oh look, more NO U

Except the rules aren't settled, he put wheels on the goalposts to ensure he always has an advantage. He flat out said "this isn't Voat" when it comes to free speech.

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:41 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 4:53 am

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:34 pm

"Heavier mod presence" what a joke, you brag about shutting forums down. FWIW in the case of 'this site's admin', his autist self didn't believe the pedo was a pedo, so technically, in his mind, he was not siding with a pedo over everyone else. In case you hadn't noticed his sporadically impaired judgement on how he comes off to people, or in other instances of just not caring (not unusual for autists), you claiming to staying butthurt over it, in light of how you treat people and are aware of what you intentionally do to hurt them, is rich! He's not a pedo sympathizer if he never believed the person to be a pedo. When I presented him with the logic of a zero tolerance over the issues of free speech, 'the site admin' choose the zero tolerance and publicly renounced pedophiles.

"In his mind, he believed it."

Who else uses that tactic?

I forgot you don't chew gum on the move. Heads up, you've burned the bridge to the 'sink in' trope. Unless you want to make people laugh maybe find something else. I do think it'd be cool if you came up with another one just as funny, kitchen appliances maybe?

Link to where I ever bragged about shutting forums down, I'll wait.

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 5:16 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 4:56 am

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:15 pm

Quit with your Teflon shield of supposedly caring about pedos, it's really about your sick self and always has been. But it's true you don't understand what humor is, your idea of humor is thinking it's funny to prey on innocent family members (cute females preferred) and try to ruin relationships and reputations of them. Collateral damage is how I imagine you justify it. You think it's funny for people to be afraid of your online psychopathic persona.

Oh look, more NO U

It's not more NO U, it's just you. The guy who loves to hang out in sleazy chat rooms and stalk people. You say it's just to target pervs, but you're a perv.

And yet, the kike that was posting underaged porn is the one you're now siding with by association.

Crensch wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 9:57 pmTitle

Lost cause since this place went the way of Poal

Only 3 cucks left

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 1:23 am

chrimony wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:51 pm Now that the drama has died down, I'll check in less and less frequently, as I remember to. There is no reason to post or read here on a daily basis.

Downvoted because goalposts have changed MFKR! oh right you're not here, but who give a crap?!

If there's anyone normal still lurking, do you ever notice how the cucks have upped their laughing at their own comments since the exodus? It's like they're virtue signaling people are supposed to join them because it's fun, only no one does. They seem to think they can create an illusion of victory when there's no one left but cucks, it's kind of amusing in a way. They're only the majority because the normal users left.

Hmm, the "Christian" just downvoted me. So much for forgiveness then?

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 9:11 pm

kestrel9 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:41 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 4:53 am

"In his mind, he believed it."

Who else uses that tactic?

I forgot you don't chew gum on the move. Heads up, you've burned the bridge to the 'sink in' trope. Unless you want to make people laugh maybe find something else. I do think it'd be cool if you came up with another one just as funny, kitchen appliances maybe?

Link to where I ever bragged about shutting forums down, I'll wait.

Still waiting...

https://i.imgflip.com/6wfcc3.jpg

DeTroyDeHelen wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 2:09 am Its important to me.

If it involves pedos I'm all for it. Maybe @SearchVoat can livestream it for the podcast

This admin now sympathizes with them. Only his cucks and one whistle blower remain.

https://files.catbox.moe/msycu4.jpg