Yeah, that's right, I said it. No anon subs and no anon posting.
We are all already anonymous, so the only purpose for anon posting/commenting is really for users to make posts without risking damage to their reputation on the site, and/or because their reputation is already shit, and they don't want their shit reputation to get in the way of their ability to garner the attention of and manipulate other users.
What types of people like anon posting, you might ask? Well, shills, degenerates, kikes, feds, pedos, and anyone else who may benefit from not building up a bad reputation attached to a specific screen name. Doesn't exactly sound like a valuable bunch of users, does it?
So, maybe anon subs and anon posting aren't right for this site. Maybe you think that is a bit extreme, maybe you don't. Maybe you don't care. I sometimes wonder how much I care, but then I remember how damaging the whole Q thing was to voat.co, and the country as a whole for that matter, so, maybe there are good reasons to care.
And before you even suggest it, blocking does not stop spam, or shills, or degenerates, or feds, and it never will. Blocking is an avoidance strategy, and avoiding problems does not do anything to solve them. Downvoating, on the other hand, actually does something to protect the site from malicious users.
[ + ] MichaelStewart
[ - ] MichaelStewart 9 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 00:42:54 ago (+9/-0)
Haha, wait what?
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 4 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:16:45 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 3 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:26:29 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:27:56 ago (+2/-0)
Cheers.
[ + ] Xigbar68
[ - ] Xigbar68 4 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:33:19 ago (+5/-1)
Glowie hands typed this post. Go fill your glowie quota somewhere else. Anyone advocating for the abolition and attack of anon subs are disingenuous, reddit equivalent faggots. These are the same people that will use your post history against you.
These people forget (or rather deliberately omit) we live in a time of growing censorship on the internet and the OP is asking us to give up what shred of anonymity we have on this site.
But go ahead and bend over so no one can be happy and be anonymous at all. I honestly wonder if any users actually realize how important any anonymity is at all because we're towards right-wing reddit (or poal) at this rate if we get rid of anonymous subs.
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 5 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:40:05 ago (+6/-1)
Unless you doxx yourself, you're already anonymous on this site. So, why do you need anon subs?
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 4 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:21:33 ago (+4/-0)
One of the guys arguing against you (3star) singlehandedly slid chat to the point of unusability (single character posts [usually period], random nonsense, etc) - cynabuns was working on char limits / muting ideas just because of him alone. And these shills are unironically calling you a fed - my sides.
In a way, your post is actually demonstrating why nothing should be 'anon' here.
[ + ] Hey_guys_whats_up
[ - ] Hey_guys_whats_up 3 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 08:12:39 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 1 point 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 09:25:07 ago (+1/-0)
I actually think they do, if you catch my drift. There is malice behind the feigned stupidity.
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:29:27 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user -1 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 05:25:03 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 1 point 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 09:23:00 ago (+1/-0)
No, no we didn't. The chans did.
Shills on Voat would occasionally try to push a 'change your name for anonymity' thing, usually right after falsely claiming to be an old goat with a few-day old account with shit comment history. You see enough of that and you start to put two and two together.
[ + ] Hey_guys_whats_up
[ - ] Hey_guys_whats_up 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 22, 2021 03:57:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 22, 2021 10:54:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] virge
[ - ] virge 2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 09:16:31 ago (+2/-0)
Anon is destructive to communities, especially when pseudonyms are already anonymous.
The only people who would argue for this are subversives that need anon to successfully complete their manipulation portfolios, or children/idiots who don't have the experience to base the reality of how destructive anon is when it resides in the same thought-space as non-anon (IE, it just gets weaponized by the same elements already unpopular in the non-anon space).
I genuinely hope new Voat leadership gives this more thoughtful consideration based on both reality and history. I believe they will regret decisions to promote anon.
[ + ] Hey_guys_whats_up
[ - ] Hey_guys_whats_up 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 22, 2021 03:58:40 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Xigbar68
[ - ] Xigbar68 1 point 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:49:39 ago (+2/-1)
Funny but only men are on the internet.
https://ibb.co/NFsFY5F
Anonymity creates the necessary barrier between user and the internet that allows truly free discussion. It's the complete separation from user and post (or comment) that allows users to express their minds without being unhinged and restrained by a visible post history. It's part of what made anonymous chan culture so great.
https://ibb.co/yBwMCmf
While I don't think that it is good that Voat is not completely username or completely anonymous, I don't think we should give up our anonymity.
[ + ] gabara
[ - ] gabara 2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 07:21:49 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 02:43:34 ago (+3/-1)*
A retarded criminal can say something profoundly true and good, be it in a moment of clarity or even by sheer accident. A respected leader can say something profoundly wrong and evil, which would lead to catastrophe if not opposed, even with the best of intentions.
Accepting or rejecting information and ideas based on who said them, rather than what was said, is the mark of a lazy and foolish mind, which is prone to all manner of group think and herd mentality.
> We are all already anonymous
Then you should have no reason to care. But, clearly, we are not. And that is why you do.
> shills, degenerates, kikes, feds, pedos
None of those have any reason to care. Because they can and do and will simply create new accounts.
You will never deter a dedicated deviant or a paid shill with your little witch hunts. The former enjoys the attention. And the latter is paid to be here. Neither gives a shit about their reputation, or your objections, or the constant heckling.
The only people you have, or will, ever manage to chase away with such behavior are legitimate users, who happen to have voiced an opinion you don't like, that one time, and now have to put up with a gang of autistic schizoids stalking everything they post while chanting "immune system, immune system!"
This not only damages an already tiny user base, but also creates a chilling effect which makes people hesitate to say some things that are on their mind or discuss certain topics. The exact opposite of what one should want here, on what is meant to be a refuge for free speech and open discourse.
Who would benefit from that?
> Downvoating, on the other hand, actually does something to protect the site from malicious users.
You can can downvote anonymous posts just fine. Having judged them for their content, as you always should.
The only things you cannot do, without a username, are:
- Stir up name-based drama or witch hunts
- Downvote based on the messenger, instead of the message
- Collate by username, while data mining this place, to more easily track thought criminals
The only reason to be upset about anonymous posts or subs is because you're being denied one or more of those things, and you really really want them.
Be honest: Which of those three is it that you're so upset about?
PS: I upvoted this post. Not because I like you. And certainly not because I agree, as clearly I do not. I upvoted because this is an idea worth discussing. And I want others to see, and be able to participate in the discussion, too. That's what this place is about. And that is what you deny people, when you downvote based on petty drama and feelings you've attached to a name.
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 3 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:15:19 ago (+3/-0)
I used to think as you do - the counterpoint to that position is context. English in particular imports a ton of context into even small nothing-sentences. Because of the ambiguity of English, much of our context comes from past interactions with a person/account/user (e.g. is the guy flirting or just making a joke / is MaroonSaint actually after my dick pics or memeing / etc).
And the killshot is using context for self defense, e.g. understanding if someone is arguing a position because they are pro-drugs/degeneracy/related, or if they are actually legitimately working through a position. For some attacks, like consensus cracking, context is literally the only defense we have against them, and even forms the backbone of bot detection strategies, etc.
Tl;dr:We have shitloads of shills, and context is our (only) defense against them.
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 3 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:32:07 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:50:48 ago (+0/-0)
Unfortunately, like many of our instincts, this is something that may have served us well in the past, but has become a severe liability in modern times. It is very easily exploited and used to undermine and attack. Far more often, and far more effectively, than as a defense.
Modern history is full of examples of this. Both in form of character assassinations, tarnishing a good man's reputation, to get the masses to ignore and reject his message without even considering it... and, on the flip side, building up reputations out of nothing but fluff, to get the masses to rabidly support everything someone does or suggests, no matter how damaging or destructive, simply because of who is promoting it and the feelings they've attached to the idea of that person.
Tactics such as this, and many others, can and likely are used here just as well as anywhere else.
You're quite right in identifying this is something we commonly do (without thinking). But I would argue that, rather than accepting and leaning into it, this is reason to watch out for it, so we can catch ourselves and prevent it. It is not our only, or even best, defense against shills. If anything, it is a weakness they can exploit.
Movements become vulnerable to consensus cracking when they become bloated with personal agendas, and aforementioned blind support based on personality cults. It can be avoided by keeping goals and ideals simple and pure. Ideas that you cannot defend are not ideas worth keeping. Drop the dead weight.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 22, 2021 10:57:38 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 22, 2021 14:02:10 ago (+0/-0)
This is the ideal result when your group is X genuine users and Y shills + bots. We can discuss the finer points amongst ourselves, which we did all the time, and is exactly how we came to recognize usernames.
Unironically yes. There is no merit to discussion with shills / bots.
Again, just in case you are arguing in good faith (which I doubt, most of us already understand why anon is bad for community): you are assuming that the shill/bot accusation is unfounded, but reviewing history is actually really reliable for finding what the literature calls 'influence agents'. When you get good at it, you can be nearly 100% certain, while being able to tell lost normal users from actual shills, etc. It is true, yes, that classic pilpul dictates you must turn your enemy's accusations against them, but it is really easy to tell when this happens when comment history is available.
Just because it was too confusing for you to follow doesn't mean it didn't work. Again, histories are the only way to provably detect bots, shills, and sockpuppets. This is not my opinion, but a provable fact that is well accepted in the Information Science communities. For example, bots are proven by figuring out how well bots can predict what the suspected bot wrote: https://aiweirdness.com/post/183315553672/it-takes-a-bot-to-know-one
Of course, you need enough data to be able to prove conclusively, hence needing history. The same applies to sockpuppets and shills, using clustering analysis techniques: https://www.cs.stanford.edu/~srijan/pubs/sockpuppets-www2017.pdf
But again, you need comments to be tied to usernames so you can build a profile of what each user 'likes' to talk about, and how they like to say the things they do. We do this just fine as humans too, it is how many of us could guess when people changed accounts.
I hope you do realize that this is conclusive - there are myriad advantages to having visible history, and anon is actually bad for any community.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 23, 2021 07:21:44 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:24:20 ago (+2/-0)
You're missing the point.
Nope. I fully disagree with this statement. The person the words come from is possibly the MOST relevant context for what is said. If what you've said here was widely taken seriously, then hypocrites and liars would often/always be able to get away with their deceptions and manipulations. Who the words come from ALWAYS matters BECAUSE of their reputation. This is why citing sources is so important. If only words mattered and not their source, then sources would never need to be cited to give words credibility.
Not gunna lie, your entire comment reads like pilpul, and coming from a 1 week old account with basically no reputation to lean on, you're not very easy to take seriously.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons -1 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 04:23:09 ago (+0/-1)
You can forum slide with a name just as well as without one.
You can downvote slide posts without a name just as well as posts with one.
If I have not considered something, you have yet to show it.
That is exactly the wrong way around, and betrays a lack of understanding of what a source even is.
If reputation was the most important thing, you would not need sources at all. All you would need is the name of the author, and the reputation attached to it. Maybe some signatures of other reputable names, to give it even more credibility. Is that what you think a source is?
We cite sources because that is how you can trace a claim back to where it came from. A measurement. An observation. A calculation. Some data. Something objective, something verifiable, something repeatable. Something empirical. Ergo, something NOT tied to a person or reputation AT ALL.
Because nobody can be trusted. Because everyone makes mistakes. So everything must be verifiable.
That is the whole point of sources, and empirical science: To get away from appeals to reputation and authority.
Your little herd animal mind just can't help itself, can it?
You're very welcome to look through my 3+ years of contributions on searchvoat. Add an underscore between the words.
Although, I would encourage you to look at the CONTENT of what I was saying, rather than the date I decided to create that account. I'm sure it must be tempting to consult your astrologist on how the planets were aligned that day, and what that says about my intentions, but I do implore you to resist the urge.
[ + ] Hey_guys_whats_up
[ - ] Hey_guys_whats_up 1 point 3.8 yearsJul 22, 2021 04:02:18 ago (+1/-0)
By the way it's funny how you want a low trust environment. This is some serious nigger tier thinking.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons -1 points 3.8 yearsJul 22, 2021 05:31:54 ago (+0/-1)
Can't help but notice everyone who disagreed with me so far is a bit on the dimwitted side.
Why do you cling to ideas when you can't even come up with a decent argument to defend them? That is nigger-tier thinking.
Nobody is suggesting everything should be anonymous. You can even name yourself when commenting on anon posts, if you really feel the need. But there is not a single good reason to deny people the ability to post something anonymously. Just plenty of bad reasons.
[ + ] theBreadSultan
[ - ] theBreadSultan -3 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:11:36 ago (+1/-4)
Anon subs let people side step drama and shit post better... And I'm all for both of those things.
On the topic of the feds, please understand that the capabilities of these people are next level.
There could be a sticked post on the front page from @system, that's not actually there, and only exists for you.
Equally they might decide that this post is fine, but this bit that's explaining their capabilities is not. So everyone else just won't see this bit of the post, but I won't know, sure I can check by loading up the post on a machine I've never used before, but am I going to do that for every post no?
I think we should also consider that freedom of expression is limited in different ways in different places.
Maybe someone in Germany is questioning past events.. Doing so on a handle that can be easily linked to that person, would certainly make prosecution and investigation a lot easier.
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 3 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:27:17 ago (+3/-0)
You are grabbing at straws.
Dragnetting is done by IPs, since IPs are allocated in blocks to countries (just the same as changing your name won't protect your bank account from the IRS dragnet, since it uses a SSN).
His position is objectively wrong, read my rebuttal below. I can expand it into a complete and rigorous argument, if you don't understand or don't believe it to be watertight.
We, as the community here, have an active interest in being able to review post history; it allows self-policing, and is literally the only defense against certain attacks that were 'part and parcel' of the chans.
[ + ] Mr7Slug
[ - ] Mr7Slug 2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 00:31:47 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] 3starAgent
[ - ] 3starAgent 1 point 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 00:59:52 ago (+4/-3)
there is already steps you can take if you don't like the anon posts
and anyone trying to make up theoretical situations of someone posting illegal material are the ones having issues
my stance will not change until there is another reason besides "Muh feelings"
[ + ] Garrett
[ - ] Garrett 3 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:02:12 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] 3starAgent
[ - ] 3starAgent -1 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:17:13 ago (+3/-4)
post manipulation can happen but is it worth losing the anon sub over?
if they want to do some nefarious activities they will just find something new each time.
so I currently am against removing anon subs
But as with everything things can always change depending on what the situation becomes
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:35:22 ago (+2/-0)
Yes, 100%.
[ + ] Hey_guys_whats_up
[ - ] Hey_guys_whats_up 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 22, 2021 04:08:58 ago (+0/-0)
If these morons don't want to believe me how stupid anon subs are, I'll simply show them myself.
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:12:14 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 1 point 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:59:47 ago (+1/-0)
Hmmm. Should I take this to mean this is a System alt? afaik he's the only one who could make such a change.
[ + ] Xigbar68
[ - ] Xigbar68 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:35:34 ago (+0/-0)
this
It's likely glowie concern trolling.
https://files.catbox.moe/3lhjit.PNG
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 04:06:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Mr7Slug
[ - ] Mr7Slug 2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 08:50:26 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 02:31:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:33:54 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:37:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:41:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:47:59 ago (+0/-0)
Nosferatjew's manifesto on weddings:
"As if I gaf what color the flowers in center piece on the tables is.
"I want a cake with 5 layers."
Great, let's do that...
"We should do a rustic theme."
Yeah, I know. We decided on this a week ago.
"We have to pick an accent color for the maid of honor!"
I DON'T CARE.
"We should have a big bird cage!"
What?
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 03:57:20 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 04:15:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 04:35:49 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 04:44:27 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 11:30:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] heygeorge
[ - ] heygeorge 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 00:00:28 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 1 point 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 00:03:24 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 4 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:26:43 ago (+5/-1)
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 1 point 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:36:32 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:38:36 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:41:13 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:46:48 ago (+0/-0)
if it wasn't meant to be positive i'll allow it.
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 1 point 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:58:38 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] collegeTry
[ - ] collegeTry 2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 06:01:26 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user -1 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 05:28:50 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger -2 points 3.8 yearsJul 21, 2021 01:24:21 ago (+0/-2)