SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:04 am
SearchVoat wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:18 am
My firm commitment is to allow all US-legal speech here.
From
the SearchVoat Forum terms:
Some kinds of content may not be posted outside forums tagged appropriately:
...
Pedo: pedophilic fiction, lolicon, sexualised images of children.
In other words, that kind of material will be tolerated here, but only in forums so marked. Users can set to view/hide those forums in their
User Control Panel. You could get banned for posting it anywhere else on this site.
In fact, as yet there are no forums tagged "Pedo" here. But if someone wants to create one I'm ok with that.
>sexualised
This is the gaping axe wound in your stance. You are allowing mob, brigading - brigading is not just downvote collusion - behavior to squelch unpopular expressions. You already allowed it against me when you deleted my seeming non-sense troll post - god forbid anyone
actually troll, that's so chan - which I later informed you was in fact intended as an instructional on color text. Therein lies the danger of permitting opinion brigading and, in answer to @
BrennKommando, assuming intentions, demanding justification for expression.
How. By your and others' allowing accusations and slander and libelous labeling to stand in for concrete arguments. You see, you permit the fascist name-calling brigade, and censorship thereby, to flourish when, eg, one posts an innocent image of a sleeping baby, a simple image alone, and the brigade is allowed to cry "child porn!!" and "pedo!!". A hundred times slander, in the name of morals. And in turn one must obligingly argue the 100 spanders in the negative. Do you not see the imbalance of onus? You lower the bar for accusations (censure), while raising the bar for justification of expression.
You are letting the brigaders define and make up imputations of "sexual" where none exists, except in their personal moral opinions and those they might cajole into agreeing.
Make up because not even one image I have posted did not come from public and legal sources. Not a single post was "illegal", no matter how many times it is claimed otherwise. And that is all they do:
claim, not prove. And for that weak lawfag larp wannabe, to claim that nothing is vetted anywhere and therefore to claim something publicly sourced is no proof of legality: he can blow goats. All images can be searched and verified. Posts can be hidden until verified. Many things, but again there is no repercussion for slander and brigading, only "guilty or not guilty" for the accused.
Your laissez-faire stance on definition could collapse this platform into a sterile echo chamber, tended by colluding mods and their mewling moralfags. You ought to review your procedure for implementation, not only the words, of your TOS.
I appreciate your efforts. I may disagree, but the absence here on your part of virtue flag waving that I recently experienced at the hands of the very owner himself of the fake voat, leading a lynch mob against his own user base, is kindly noted.