Restrictions Will Be Changing (announcements)

submitted ago by PuttItOut

I have made a decision to alter and/or remove various restrictions on Voat. I’ve thought a lot about this and it’s something both @Atko and I believe needs to be reevaluated.

Voat has always had a problem with spam. @Amalek would spam posts and hijack the new queue making it unusable. MH101 and then later @SaneGoatiSwear would hijack comment pages making them unusable. The rules Voat uses were put in place in to combat this behavior. They are old rules, mostly remaining unchanged from the initial versions of this site. Most, if not all, of the rules were in direct response to spam attacks. It was never Voat’s intention to limit non-spam accounts, but this is what has happened as an indirect result of these rules.

Voat will not keep in place a system that permanently limits a segment of users from debating and conversing. This isn’t Free Speech as I see it or as I want it.

Voat will shortly be going live with a new code base, and I want to have a new system designed and ready for when this happens, so I am posting this announcement to get feedback from the community.

The main areas of concern:

  1. Commenting restrictions on negative CCP accounts that aren't spamming their comments
  2. Limiting any account that spam comments

TL;DR

We need to allow unpopular opinions while preventing comment spam.

How do we do it?

All options are on the table

https://voat.co/v/announcements/1330806

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

KingoftheMolePeople ago

Remove restrictions from Negative accts. Put in place a Spam button. Once an account has X number of Spam button reports, acct restrictions go into effect. To prevent abuse, if the restrictions are refuted("I am not spamming"), upon investigation, anyone found to be abusing the Spam button faces consequences, from restrictions themselves to a full on site ban.

PuttItOut ago

We should discuss this option in detail.

uruneidiot ago

Knowing that over a year has passed and you are still a completely clueless, censorship loving, fuckwitted cuntbag is sad.

~ registereduser

Liber ago

Have a site wide ‘potential spammer’ flair for people who have been reported for spam more than x times. Upon evaluation you could remove this flair if the user is victim of report button abuse.

derram ago

Big fish eats little fish.

redpilldessert ago

As a simply precautionary measure, it might be wise to restrict who can press the spam button to those with high karma.

23749012340 ago

you are reddit scum, and fuck off, im the iron fist

10249428? ago

from the 1.4 hour old account.

Let me greet you in the traditional Voat way:

Welcome to Voat! Fuck you nigger!

KosherHiveKicker ago

Put in place a Spam button. Once an account has X number of Spam button reports, acct restrictions go into effect

Such an option could easily be exploited by people known to have multiple alt / burner accounts, which could be used to easily hit "the X number of Spam button reports"

SotiCoto ago

It is an inevitability that people will find ways to exploit systems like that.

As long as the folks in charge can see the IP address of the reporters, it'll be obvious if someone is sock-puppeting to make multiple spam reports. They can get the usual "Oi, don't be a dick" message... or get an IP-ban on spam-report privileges.

O'course they might have a VPN or two if they're canny, but how many people are going to go THAT far just to false-report spam on Voat? ... Wait... don't answer...

glennvtx ago

We could institute a time limit, that adjusted, to determine how often an account could use the spam button.

glennvtx ago

Consequences for multi / alt accounts being gamed could be a much more lengthy period between the spam button "unlocking".

AmaleksHairyAss ago

A "this is not spam" button could mitigate this.

KosherHiveKicker ago

I suspect that you are one of the people that I am specifically talking about.

You have made multiple accounts combining many ( Voat user's names + an insult. ) in the past. Which you then specifically use to stalk, chain downvoat, and harass the specific user named.

AmaleksHairyAss ago

Not I

eyeVoated ago

How about adding a bot challenge?

KosherHiveKicker ago

I doubt it is a bot problem.

It is more likely a few ((( neckbeards ))) creating multiple "burner" accounts by hand... all on a daily basis.

CrustyBeaver52 ago

Perhaps it can be altered to tag the spam report with the name of the reporter as well.

As in User X reports User Y for spam. Repeat abuse by multiple alt/burner accounts would show up here.

Also, just clicking a button - like the downvoat, is supper easy, perhaps a spam form that requires some interaction, like the mods have when they ban somebody, so at least if you report for spam, you probably really mean it because you have to make a partial effort. Not something of major inconvenience - but I have noticed some of the ban messages are quite creative and entertaining in their own right.

AssFaceSandwich2 ago

Also, form a list of improperly-accused-for-spam to be on an permanent-not-spam setting. Earned status.

SotiCoto ago

Permanent? NOT a good idea.

Maybe temporary though... until stuff dies down.

Pattoe ago

Create account, use it normally, create a bunch of alts, report it for spam. When restricted, refute the restrictions. Get put on "permanent not spam" setting, start spamming.

This is bound to happen.

AssFaceSandwich2 ago

Yeah, people fucking suck.

jeremiahk ago

The spam button still works, but when the status is set, it goes to manual review before the account is permanently banned.

MagicalCentaurBeans ago

i suspect the cracks will show when whomever is tasked with investigating is swamped with "i didn't do it" refutes.

brandon816 ago

Keep in mind that this really needs to be done only once per person, very likely that the user always was or never was abusive. Hardly anybody just decides one day to change their ways.

Le_Squish ago

How about a new option under user info that shows how many of that person's post have been flagged for spam and how many post have been removed, deleted, etc. with links to said posts?

heygeorge ago

I like the basic idea of this, but with any new system comes a new potential for abuse.

Le_Squish ago

There will always be abuse. The goal should be to minimize not eliminate because that is impossible.

SotiCoto ago

I'm inclined to add that the aim should be to make one deliberate, semi-subtle avenue for abuse and attempt to close all others... end result being that those who seek to abuse the system will all attempt the same method... making it easier to track them and covertly deal with them.

And then of course this becomes recursive as you find those who can bypass the trap... and set about closing all the bypasses but one... which becomes a second trap-within-a-trap... and so on.

... Am I getting too Machiavellian about this?

heygeorge ago

It's important to note minimizing the scope & type of damage may be just as the important as the amount of abuse.

10247510? ago

Depending on how the system is implemented this may not even be necessary.

RevanProdigalKnight ago

Just because it isn't necessary doesn't mean it shouldn't be there, though. The greatest aid to free speech is complete transparency.

10247793? ago

I agree, I'm just saying the system might be designed in a way that the transparency is elsewhere and simpler.

RevanProdigalKnight ago

Maybe putting a summary in the username hover pop over would be handy on that count

Lemongarb ago

Maybe have a "council" that reviews the post/comment being refuted. That way it's not just one person.

SotiCoto ago

That would be subject to groupthink and the usual pitfalls of democratic action: i.e. tyranny of the majority. Outliers would be left powerless.

10247209? ago

If this is going to replace negative CCP entirely it should be a group of trusted users.

KingoftheMolePeople ago

Its a totally spur of the moment idea. There are certainly things I havent considered and problems Ive overlooked.