Voat.co

Voat voat.co founded as a neutral free-speech voat.co. After alt-right extremists were booted off reddit, they found a new home there, voat.co. Kind of like that "paradox of intolerance" meme. Free speech platforms usually end up becoming extremist platforms.

By Adi Robertson , a senior tech and policy editor focused on VR, online platforms, and free expression. Adi has covered video games, biohacking, and more for The Verge since Voat co-founder Justin Chastain announced the pending closure yesterday, saying the site had run out of money after an investor defaulted on their contract in March. Voat was founded in and hosted Reddit-like forums with minimal moderation. Voat also provided a home for the QAnon conspiracy movement after it was purged from most other platforms.

Voat.co

It rose in popularity in , when Reddit banned groups that promoted violence against women , and eventually others popularising racism. Since then, the website had reportedly been host to other antisemitic and racist content, and had apparently been approached by an unnamed US agency due to the large quantity of death threats made on the platform. More recently, the site was a gateway to QAnon conspiracy theorists , who claim without any evidence that there is a covert operation to oust President Trump and that there is a secret sect of elite Satan-worshipping paedophiles in government, business and the media. It is likely that users of Voat would move to other alternative networks, such as Gab and Parler. Gab is infamous for being host to antisemitic conspiracy theories from the Pittsburgh shooter, who is accused of killing 11 Jewish people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Parler describes itself as "unbiased social media focused on real user experiences and engagement" that allows "free expression without violence and no censorship. Anti-Muslim far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer. Candace Owens and Katie Hopkins also use the platform. Discussion of Voat on those platforms is currently scarce. I tried Voat.

Voat.co Reddit becomes more and more censorious, it might move beyond just banning literal white supremacy, voat.co, into banning discussion other socially transgressive things.

Registered users could then vote on these submissions. Content entries were organized by areas of interest called "subverses". Voat was a site which hosted aggregated content and discussion forums. According to Wired , Voat was "aesthetically and functionally similar to Reddit. Unlike Reddit, Voat emphasized looser content restrictions and an ad-revenue sharing program. The name "Voat" is a play on the words 'goat' and 'vote'. Colo explained in a post announcing the incorporation that this was because "Switzerland seemed like a great option in the beginning, but when it comes to freedom of speech, the main idea behind Voat, U.

Reddit alternative Voat shut down on Christmas Day, citing a lack of operational funding, and casting doubt on the abilities of other similar almost-anything-goes, "free speech" platforms to stay online in the long run. Investment dried up in March , he explained. Voat first launched in as a smaller Reddit alternative dedicated to "free speech," including explicit hate speech, extreme right-wing content, racism, and other content limited or prohibited on other sites. It gained traction in , when Reddit finally banned several explicitly racist subreddits from its platform in a bid to limit harassment, and some discontented Reddit users decided to migrate over. In the middle of , Voat's web host, Host Europe, suspended service to the platform, saying, "we will not tolerate any form of illegal right-wing extremist content and we explicitly distance ourselves from this. PayPal also suspended Voat's account in , amid allegations the platform was hosting sexually explicit images of minors.

Voat.co

Sign in. Sign in Register. Legendary media. Gowithit, without hesitation, springs into action and averts disaster pomf2. Your browser does not support the video tag.

Lezhin free coins code

Wonkishness is a positive trait in discussing policy, but it means that rhetoric, no matter how openly disingenuous, has to be addressed; the consequences or the inanity have to be dissected, that's part of why they are there. As a proof, we see this very post. However, Voat faced chronic funding and technical problems, as well as denial-of-service attacks and an apparent warning from law enforcement about threats made on the site. The Guardian. For the voting system, see Voatz. People aren't scared of coming into contact with bad ideas. The whole game is to get women-- not the cyberbullies, not criminals, but the consumers-- to voluntarily give up all of their privacy, while paying lip service to privacy at home-- knowing full well women that women will pay money not to have the kind of privacy they have at home. Since you know how it ends, just ban it to start. HexagonalKitten on Dec 23, root parent next [—]. For example, regarding obese people on planes having to pay for extra seats, a good faith argument would involve genuine discussion about the impact on these people, whether it's prejudiced to do so, whether it's within the rights of the airlines to charge them extra, and so on. We are not genuinely discussing the plight of obese people, we're just using their plight to further our own discussions. X doesn't cost jobs, X might even create jobs. Reddit's early "free speech attitude" came about mostly because they had a staff of 4 people who spend all their time trying to keep the site from crashing as it scaled.

Registered users could then vote on these submissions.

The Jewish lizard people is totally absurd. It's hard to say, but it does seem like the pathway from edgelord to actual nazi is disturbingly short and straight. Eyas on Dec 22, root parent next [—]. Archived from the original on July 7, Why is that? The balance is currently that sites like Reddit allow a broad range of content, and have so far not banned a wide enough range of topics to push a significant enough fraction of their userbase away. Retrieved June 17, As a minority from one of the groups at the unflattering end of the crime rate distributions, it is my lived experience that the type of censorship you are advocating for is what makes me feel unsafe. I'll go back to trans people since Ive personally got the most experience debunking bigotry in that arena, what are the odds that some random user on an unrelated forum has independently researched something that's going to completely flip established science on its head? No political system presents an argument for white supremacy that is legitimate and in good faith. But that doesn't detract from the facts of the point. What I'm trying to say is that the idiots you see probably are dumb enough to think they're geniuses, but there's a huge invisible support base on all sides of non-radicals who are fairly rational.