I'm concerned that I'm actually loosing IQ points from my time over there, but I can't seem to stop myself returning.
Anyone else?
The topic is pretty complex, hence I think there are lots of issues to consider.
Regarding freedom: some characters will always push the limits, and it's not practical to give it to them. I think it's better to aim for equality/consistency.
For example, one person's world-defining issue is another's spam. If you give people the freedom to post and comment indefinitely, they might take it, and ruin the experience of others. As another example, if I was a real bastard I might decide to build up a sub and then slowly, as mod, turn the censorship up to ridiculous unjustifiable levels, maybe just to piss people off or hurt the website. There are some levels of mod (and user) behavior that the admins could reasonably decide should not be 'free' in principle. (Though I realize in practice it's hard work to enforce rules that try to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable censorship.)
Other complications: When subs get big can they be promoted to being 'default' subs? If a mod or mods inherit an established sub, are they free to do whatever they like with it? I think even the founding moderator is not the sole 'owner' of a sub, the community (including the site admins) are also part owners, hence I think it's justified to put some limits on acceptable mod behavior.
Regarding users having the freedom to use a sub or go elsewhere. Sometimes that's quite possible (with some inconvenience to everyone), at other times it's not going to make much sense having some tin-pot dictator squatting on the obvious sub name for a topic.
I occasionally wonder if a twin should be created for each new sub: in essence a version that shows the same posts/comments but with minimal censorship. The mods can heavily censor the non-free version, but censored material would still show on the free version. Users would then get to choose which version they view.
The topic is pretty complex, hence I think there are lots of issues to consider.
Regarding freedom: some characters will always push the limits, and it's not practical to give it to them. I think it's better to aim for equality/consistency.
For example, one person's world-defining issue is another's spam. If you give people the freedom to post and comment indefinitely, they might take it, and ruin the experience of others. As another example, if I was a real bastard I might decide to build up a sub and then slowly, as mod, turn the censorship up to ridiculous unjustifiable levels, maybe just to piss people off or hurt the website. There are some levels of mod (and user) behavior that the admins could reasonably decide should not be 'free' in principle. (Though I realize in practice it's hard work to enforce rules that try to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable censorship.)
Other complications: When subs get big can they be promoted to being 'default' subs? If a mod or mods inherit an established sub, are they free to do whatever they like with it? I think even the founding moderator is not the sole 'owner' of a sub, the community (including the site admins) are also part owners, hence I think it's justified to put some limits on acceptable mod behavior.
Regarding users having the freedom to use a sub or go elsewhere. Sometimes that's quite possible (with some inconvenience to everyone), at other times it's not going to make much sense having some tin-pot dictator squatting on the obvious sub name for a topic.
I occasionally wonder if a twin should be created for each new sub: in essence a version that shows the same posts/comments but with minimal censorship. The mods can heavily censor the non-free version, but censored material would still show on the free version. Users would then get to choose which version they view.
I think that a little inconvenience is fine for freedom. I don't think the size of a sub should matter. The only thing that I think matters is if its a default or not. Default basically has it under the admins rules and guidelines.
We can always say how much we want every sub to be the communities. But the censorship tools come from the top. At any point the admins could just change their minds and start censoring the whole site.
There are very little, if any, places on the internet you can go that is not censored. Its a clusterfuck, but the beginning of the internet was always a clusterfuck. I want uncensored clusterfuck back. I want to be the one who chooses where I go. I want to choose what I see. I don't want people telling me what I should see anymore. I don't want people telling me what is "right" anymore.
In any situation where a sub gets crazy because some mod is an asshole. I think it is totally worth the hassle to have the option to move somewhere else. Anyone who stays must enjoy it.
I think that a little inconvenience is fine for freedom. I don't think the size of a sub should matter. The only thing that I think matters is if its a default or not. Default basically has it under the admins rules and guidelines.
We can always say how much we want every sub to be the communities. But the censorship tools come from the top. At any point the admins could just change their minds and start censoring the whole site.
There are very little, if any, places on the internet you can go that is not censored. Its a clusterfuck, but the beginning of the internet was always a clusterfuck. I want uncensored clusterfuck back. I want to be the one who chooses where I go. I want to choose what I see. I don't want people telling me what I should see anymore. I don't want people telling me what is "right" anymore.
In any situation where a sub gets crazy because some mod is an asshole. I think it is totally worth the hassle to have the option to move somewhere else. Anyone who stays must enjoy it.
We have a different idea of 'default' subs. I think many subs that get popular/successful enough could be promoted to 'defaults' and those that are defaults now could be demoted later. Defaults at Voat and Phuks are different, and you can expect them to keep changing.
I think referring to freedom as you do is oversimplified. To give mods too much freedom would be to restrict the freedom of users - and I prefer user freedom over mod freedom. Censorship doesn't just come from admins, it comes from mods as well if you give them the option/power to heavily censor others.
I don't want people telling me what I should see anymore. I don't want people telling me what is "right" anymore.
There will be mods who restrict what you see and tell you what is right (if you let them).
Take /s/Canada for example. If that was someday taken over by an asshole mod, users are kind of screwed. People will come to the site and check "Canada" and will find the asshole sub-squatting - sure, users in the know might start up /s/Canada_II or /s/Canuckistan, but it's not the same. It really wouldn't be worth screwing over the site and users to defend the asshole mod's 'freedom'.
We can just agree to disagree on this if you like. It's been interesting to get your point of view anyway.
We have a different idea of 'default' subs. I think many subs that get popular/successful enough could be promoted to 'defaults' and those that are defaults now could be demoted later. Defaults at Voat and Phuks are different, and you can expect them to keep changing.
I think referring to freedom as you do is oversimplified. To give mods too much freedom would be to restrict the freedom of users - and I prefer user freedom over mod freedom. Censorship doesn't just come from admins, it comes from mods as well if you give them the option/power to heavily censor others.
> I don't want people telling me what I should see anymore. I don't want people telling me what is "right" anymore.
There will be *mods* who restrict what you see and tell you what is right (if you let them).
Take /s/Canada for example. If that was someday taken over by an asshole mod, users are kind of screwed. People will come to the site and check "Canada" and will find the asshole sub-squatting - sure, users in the know might start up /s/Canada_II or /s/Canuckistan, but it's not the same. It really wouldn't be worth screwing over the site and users to defend the asshole mod's 'freedom'.
We can just agree to disagree on this if you like. It's been interesting to get your point of view anyway.
My argument was that freedom applies to everyone. For the rules that everyone expects on Voat, you get that with default subs. If it is not a default sub, it can do whatever it wants. This gives users the freedom to continue to use the sub, or to go to another sub.
If its not default, they can do whatever they want. If they censor the shit out of everything, everyone is free to make an alternative and not support the censorship.