Is it possible that Phuks will move to less restrictive hosting in future?

[–] pembo210 12 points (+12|-0)

I have a server all built. The plan was to move us to a dedicated host several months ago, but the new host is $90/month while we currently pay $35/m. It was more about getting more server space, but the better tos came with it as a package deal. We haven't hit the limit yet, even with a mobile dev env running so I hadn't really thought of it. I'm the money guy, so I like the cheaper hosting.

We'll open it up to everyone. If we did upgrade, we could run a few sites on the same machine, each with their own rules/themes..

[–] seanking2919 0 points (+0|-0)

There's Panama-based CCI Hosting, which supports freedom of speech: https://www.ccihosting.com/

[–] PMYA 10 points (+10|-0)

Edited

Honestly, as time goes on I find myself wondering if it is even beneficial. The blanket bans on certain topics and language on massive and even moderately sized sites has resulted in a situation where any small sites promoting a platform based around free speech inevitably end up being populated by that 1% of users who want to do nothing but shitpost about jews all day. It has certainly helped avoid a lot of that happening here.

Ideally this would be a non issue, but in reality it is. I would prefer to have a hosting situation where we could define our TOS without having to consider a third party though. Rewording of some stuff, particularly the gambling and security points would be nice.

[–] KillBill 6 points (+6|-0)

Consider also that the takeover of Voat was not organic.

[–] smallpond [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

a situation where any small sites promoting a platform based around free speech inevitably end up being populated by that 1% of users who want to do nothing but shitpost about jews all day.

At present those people have already have Voat and Poal where they can do that and be loved for it, so I'd hope that you wouldn't get an unmanageable influx.

[–] ScorpioGlitch 6 points (+6|-0)

Edited

Only if subs can go private with an additional option by the admin to force subs private (by private, I mean "you can't see their content unless you are subscribed or directly on that sub). That's the only way I'd support that. Otherwise we 100% have to play in the same playground and my mother taught me not to defecate in my own yard.

[–] jobes 2 points (+2|-0)

Private subs bring in a whole new wave of admin responsibility. That's not an option at this point. What if someone started a child porn sub as private? Only the admins could see it and bring out down, which is only a few users seeing a few thousand posts some days.

[–] ScorpioGlitch 1 points (+1|-0)

I didn't say invite only. That would certainly lock it down like that. No, it just doesn't show up in /all. That's all it means.

[–] jobes 1 points (+1|-0)

Sure, subscribers only. I like that option and I would enjoy that. The big problem is EU regulations coming through that content providers are responsible for the content they host, whether it be links, images or videos.

Having private subs prevents a majority of the community from flagging something that may get the site taken down in certain countries. Maybe having private subs would actually prevent certain countries from seeing the content and be super beneficial. I don't know. It's just wavy ground to walk upon. (I am not affiliated with phuks, just my own personal opinion)

Load more (1 comment)

[–] Justintoxicated 5 points (+5|-0)

I'm more into preservation of the community, keep costs down until we know the new server/hosting is needed/affordable. I just think of all the times Voat would post "it's the end of Voat" posts because the costs got too high too fast. The user growth on Phuks good because this site actually attracts high quality users that want build/participate which is sustainable.

[–] smallpond [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

We have a user attrition rate as well. Too early to tell, but the worst-case scenario is that the new server will never be needed.

[–] Butler_crosley 2 points (+2|-0)

User attrition will occur on any site. People come and look around and decide if the site is for them. I agree with Justintoxicated that the active base here seem to be users that are more interested in helping build a higher quality sustainable site. Hopefully that goal can be obtained while still having freedom of speech that isn't abused like it is on other sites.

[–] Sarcastaway 3 points (+3|-0)

The only thing I don't like about the ToS are the restrictions it places on language. I can certainly live without promoting actual hate or violence, but a good slur is a wonderful thing when used correctly.

As a side note, I find the modern usage of the word "discrimination" pretty silly. In the strictest legal sense of the word, the ToS prevents voicing any persuasive opinion which might lead to a decision relating to a person.

So one might argue that given the US' ruling that corporations are people, this post is in violation of the ToS because you make a good case for choosing a new host ;)

[–] smallpond [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

Yes, I'm inciting discrimination against hosting providers that necessitate discrimination clauses - which is basically inciting discrimination, violence and hatred towards the races, religions or nations mentioned in those clauses.

I agree the TOS clause is ridiculously vague - if some unreasonable person in power is not on your side, good luck trying to cover your ass.

[–] nomad_goat 1 points (+1|-0)

Discrimination is a catch all (read lazy) phrase. And as useful to normal users as a zero tolerance policy is for students. Im not looking to go around and start a lunch mob, but I do want to talk about race and culture as it affects the society I live in.

[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+2|-1)

Post freely and downvote only if off topic.

[–] IHatePteranodons 1 points (+1|-0)

I don't know if allowing those things is a good idea, I tried Voat for a while but I really didn't like it because all the racists who were banned from Reddit went there. I don't want Phuks to end the same.

[–] smallpond [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

Voat effectively had censorship in place to protect the 'racists' and make sure more moderate viewpoints didn't gain a foothold. Despite what they say, Voat isn't what free speech looks like.

[–] seanking2919 1 points (+1|-0)

Edited

Honestly, I'd love to see Phuks become a pro-free speech alternative to Voat and Reddit as well. Sure, it may mean racist assholes will be here as well. But, I personally think downvoting (thus, effectively shunning them) those kinds of assholes would be better than deplatforming them altogether.

Is it possible that Phuks will move to less restrictive hosting in future?

22 comments

/s/AskPhuks