15

Specifically, something that allows the following item in the TOS to be removed or eased.

Posting content of any kind that incites discrimination, hate or violence towards one person or a group of people because of their belonging to a race, religion or nation is strictly prohibited.

Inciting 'discrimination, hate or violence' isn't my thing, but clearly it's important to many people who might contribute or increase site activity.

Free speech is an attractive ideal for me and many others - unfortunately following through with it means giving up a lot of website control.

Specifically, something that allows the following item in the TOS to be removed or eased. > Posting content of any kind that incites discrimination, hate or violence towards one person or a group of people because of their belonging to a race, religion or nation is strictly prohibited. Inciting 'discrimination, hate or violence' isn't my thing, but clearly it's important to many people who might contribute or increase site activity. Free speech is an attractive ideal for me and many others - unfortunately following through with it means giving up a lot of website control.

22 comments

[–] 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.