Looks to me as though they're trying to get rid of the sub. In the past, they have made a decision on removing mods of subs and putting new ones in without too much user interaction, and they have never directly asked if a sub should be left to rot before.
The fact that the conversation can not be had without it being anon says a lot about the decline of Voat's community.
My thoughts exactly. What an unprecedented move to actually speak to the users as an admin but in anon format. How bizarre. Secondly, I find it funny that the warrant canary wasn't updated even after they responded to a comment reflecting on it. All in all, this makes me beyond happy to know that I left that shit hole when I did. (I only went to look after seeing this post as when Voat really fucking destructs there is a high chance a lot will land here).
TLDR: Fuck that place, the writing has been on the walls for a LONG time there and it's even more funny that they basically have to accept they are the new Storm-front else lose a good majority of their donating members.
Plus if they ban the sub they then basicly betray the reason why people went to boat anyways. As there isn't really a legal reason to ban it (not an illegal topic it's a free space matter)
Basically it's lose lose for voat
They're doing the right thing by making it anon. My point is the fact that it has to be anon in the first place really brings to light some of the toxicity in the userbase now.
In the case of Voat, it couldn't really be helped. Have a Reddit clone based on the concept of free speech right around the time Reddit bans all their hate subs, and you're fucked. In my opinion, it is a lot healthier for the site if growth is managed to climb at a slow rate. That gives everyone a chance to acclimatise to the site and stops one group of users from taking the whole thing over.
How you plan on doing that is another matter entirely.
Because of just that. They have to have it anonymized in order to illicit real responses and opinions while trying quell any brigading or attacks that those opinions would illicit themselves.
Apples and oranges my friend. You're talking about a global super power's political election. This submission is talking about a right winged general aggregate site deciding with what to do about their /v/niggers subverse after it slipped through their fingers. When it comes to the latter, anyone, including all of their sock puppets can give the illusion of mass opinion in one direction or another VERY easily. When it comes to the former, you must provide state ID to receive a ballot in which to vote, thus protecting the legitimacy of the process.
More than likely the only people who want to invest in it are white nationalists looking to turn it into more of a hugbox than it currently is.
The term investor implies that they expect a return on their money. And I hate to break it to you, but anyone with money to invest isn't going to give free speech a more important priority than their money with which they expect a return on. What they really need if they want to live is a high profile donor, not that I hope that happens, as they do not deserve it.
I wasn't suggesting that the person was putting money into the project to get a return more that they were putting money in to support their own belief on free speech.
Yeah making an anon anouncment seems quite bad.
Also the warent canary thing going on there as well either they got a full NS letter which would make them pretend the Canary isn't dead or the admins don't care enough to update their canary in a month which they can in a couple of clicks.