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.
This is actually a pretty decent and interesting approach. Personally I prefer total freedom, but if you do want to prevent this sort discrimination this is a pretty solid and honest approach to doing so. Much moreso than reddit.
One thing that should be clarified is specifically what you mean wrt to "belong to a .... nation"
Specifically is it allowable to incite hatred (or even violence) against a person for being a politician of a given nation?
In other words: can users agitate for (potentially violent) revolution on phuks? (Note this is not my intention in using the site, I am indeed a pacifist)
I ask this because the founders of reddit once suggested that they imagined "Common Sense" would be posted on their platform if it exited at the time of the American Revolution. But these days reddit's policies against violent content are so broad and subjective that such a manifesto would likely be banned.
Additionally, accounts may be suspended for reasons not listed in this agreement.
This seems a bit ridiculously broad and serves to weaken an otherwise quite solid TOS for a site like this.
As someone who was on voat from the start, no—we had the ability to say whatever, whenever. I understand that changed later.
There were good discussions on a variety of issues.
If you could back up your points, regardless of it they differed from others, then you would not be downvoated. If you just said provocative statements just for shock value, then you could say them. But you took the responsibility of what happened with that.
I still feel this was a good methodology, but that’s my opinion.