Screaming "nigger faggot" all day every day does not equate to free speech.
Voat is an echo chamber precisely because putttitout and atko always hated free speech.
That has not and will not change. That is why censorship on voat has steadily grown and will continue to do so.
They don't have a clue what free speech means, that is new users who do know what it means don't stick around. Voat bills itself as all about free speech, people with any intelligence whatsover will see that in fact that is fake news, if they look around and pay attention. Then they leave. Or some stick around just to stir the pot.
No, puttitout is not about free speech. Never has been.
Screaming does not equate free speech, but the ability to do so is a related matter.
Voat is an echo chamber, but your reason seems like unsupported speculation. I don't think Putt had much to do with the creation of the Voat community. I think you're giving them credit for things that were beyond them.
I also don't know what your version of 'free speech' is. It sounds rather specific. I've always viewed the term as a broad generalization. It's meaning being literal.
Communication without restriction.
As far as open and honest dialogue goes, I think your description of Voat is apt. People looking for a free exchange of ideas might be drawn there for a moment, but when they see what's really going on, they flee. Wrong-think is punished on Voat even harder than Eddit.
I don't think Putt has ever been about free speech. He was a codemonkey that fell into it. But he has embraced the role when it was dropped on him.
Voat is intertwined with free speech whether he wants it or not.
If new users don't care about free speech, why care about new users?
When you flood a site with users that are only there for muh free speech, it gets toxic and there is no focus on anything else outside of the meta aspect of having a site that supports free speech. Generally speaking, of course. There is no fucking way that Voat will ever attract any other demographic than the one that's already there, I think the 2.5 year old accounts that suddenly went dead after the hate subs jumped to Voat says it all.
If the site is billed as a 'free-speech' site, then trying to attract people who are startled by it, is probably a bad idea.
If he wants to get rid of 'toxic' users, that's a whole different topic that will conflict with free speech.
it gets toxic and there is no focus on anything else..
I'm not sure that is inevitable. That is what happened on Voat, but part of that was timing and a reaction to outside forces.
While it may always be a danger, I think it is an avoidable one.
Well that's worrying. If Voat implodes, some of them might come here and we'll have to burn this place to the ground.
Maybe we can go private like they did in the early days over there.
Let's burn this place to the ground now. This way we can be one step ahead.
I think that may be giving the wrong impression without context.
I don't think Putt was speaking about his feelings on speech, I think he was talking about people in general, and that free speech isn't important enough to potential new users to draw them to Voat. It does scare off the timid.
What I'm wondering, is why that matters. If new users don't care about free speech, why care about new users?
He's talking as if Voat was some type of business that seeks a profit.
If that's the case, I've got bad news for Putt, there's no money. And bad news for the goats, Putts gonna sell them all down the river, if cash is the goal.
Commercial interest, or free speech.
He can pick only one.