8

I'm not sure if the same applies here, but I believe Voat had the right idea in banning People only if they'd broken the TOS,and maybe in some other edge cases. Bans in my opinion should be used sparingly, and the boned user should always be notified (no shadow banning).

The users base did a pretty good job in the beginning of using their downvotes to stop any spam (or in certain subs, dissenting opinions), but the beauty of that is it was still available to be seen if someone wanted to. No rows upon rows of [DELETED].

Just wanted to put that out there, would love to hear all your thoughts on this matter.

I'm not sure if the same applies here, but I believe Voat had the right idea in banning People only if they'd broken the TOS,and maybe in some other edge cases. Bans in my opinion should be used sparingly, and the boned user should always be notified (no shadow banning). The users base did a pretty good job in the beginning of using their downvotes to stop any spam (or in certain subs, dissenting opinions), but the beauty of that is it was still available to be seen if someone wanted to. No rows upon rows of [DELETED]. Just wanted to put that out there, would love to hear all your thoughts on this matter.

10 comments

[–] Arotaes 3 points (+3|-0)

I disagree in that regard, Voat was the anarchist to Reddit's totalitarianism. Voat regulated too little while Reddit regulated too much - one thing that you have to give Reddit credit for is their lack of established spammers. I loved Voat's freedom, but there comes a point in which intervention is necessary for things to run smoothly in all scenarios. So long story short, Voat underdid it and Reddit overdid it. We need to find a happy medium.