Hosteurope.de shut down our servers due to “political incorrectness”(voat.co)
voat.co
Hosteurope.de shut down our servers due to “political incorrectness”
https://voat.co/v/announcements/comments/146757
13 コメント
(3) The Client may not infringe statutory prohibitions, moral
standards or the rights of third parties (copyright law, trademark
law, rights to the name and data protection law etc.) through his use
of his website or the banners that appear on the website. […] In the
event of any infringement of one of the aforementioned obligations,
the Provider shall be entitled to suspend the provision of his
services with immediate effect or to block access to the Client’s
information.
IANAL, but this may count as moral standards of third parties.
So hypothetically hosteurope.de could take down almost any fashion blog or picture of a woman hosted on their servers because in Saudi Arabia it is illegal to show a woman's body?
http://observers.france24.com/content/20090601-spot-differen...
Yes, a bit facetious but the point is that such a 'moral' clause is so wide that it can be misused at will. What is moral for one person may not be for another and what's moral in one society may not be in another.
Beyond that, it must be noted that hosteurope.de did not cite this as their reason. They did not use the 'moral' clause but their exact words were 'politically incorrect'.
http://observers.france24.com/content/20090601-spot-differen...
Yes, a bit facetious but the point is that such a 'moral' clause is so wide that it can be misused at will. What is moral for one person may not be for another and what's moral in one society may not be in another.
Beyond that, it must be noted that hosteurope.de did not cite this as their reason. They did not use the 'moral' clause but their exact words were 'politically incorrect'.
Yes they could if they choose to. So just don't use them for your hosting if you have such concerns. I know I wouldn't choose them (though I'm not exactly in the market for a hosting company at the moment)
And those of us who wouldn't have thought too-much about it, will now definitely not use this hosting provider.
> moral standards
there is no such thing as a "moral standard".
there is no such thing as a "moral standard".
There most certainly are. But like technical standards, they're a dime a dozen.
Usually moral standards unlike technical standards are shrouded in lies in hypocrisy.
I have slight doubts that the German company wrote to the Swedish user based in Switzerland in English.
Personally I suspect hosteurope pulling the plug has more to do with the neo-Nazi forums and borderline child porn. (Voat operates by Swiss laws on legality of porn, which allow stuff Germany doesn't.)
It is possible that Voat is spinning this to make themselves look good. Also, they want more donations.
Personally I suspect hosteurope pulling the plug has more to do with the neo-Nazi forums and borderline child porn. (Voat operates by Swiss laws on legality of porn, which allow stuff Germany doesn't.)
It is possible that Voat is spinning this to make themselves look good. Also, they want more donations.
What's unprofessional is to break your hosting provider's ToS, which you knew ahead of time.
Can you please cite hosteurope.de's ToS where it says that their clients content must be "politically correct" and that "politically incorrect" content will result in an immediate revocation of the account?
One mans morality is another's joke. Hint: shariah law, etc.
For those who need the context -- when Reddit had that big bust-up last week about banning subreddits like /r/fatepeoplehate, aggrieved commenters were recommending that others migrate to voat.co. That effectively means that voat.co recently absorbed the slimy runoff of Reddit's worst element.
Given that, it isn't wholly surprising that their hosting service wanted no part of them.
Given that, it isn't wholly surprising that their hosting service wanted no part of them.
Please don't misrepresent what happened. A lot of people, myself included, left Reddit because I don't agree with the way the CEO is handling things. My leaving Reddit had nothing to do with fatpeoplehate being banned. I just don't agree with shadowbanning people and removing -distasteful- subreddits. I just don't visit them.
Reddit has become a marketing tool either way, so I that was just another drop in the bucket for me and I left.
Reddit has become a marketing tool either way, so I that was just another drop in the bucket for me and I left.
They should have handled the /r/fatpeoplehate problem by hiding them from /r/all. Then nobody will see the subreddit unless they directly go to it and/or subscribe to it.
What they actually did reeks of incompetence. The reaction they got from banning the subreddit was entirely predictable, and because of this, gives the impression that they're pretty far disconnected from their users. It doesn't bode well for the long-term success of the site.
What they actually did reeks of incompetence. The reaction they got from banning the subreddit was entirely predictable, and because of this, gives the impression that they're pretty far disconnected from their users. It doesn't bode well for the long-term success of the site.
Totally agree. Whoever made that decision proved that they are absolutely not the right person or persons to be at the helm of reddit.
Not only that, apart from the decision, the way that it was implemented was so tone-deaf and juvenile that it went beyond mere incompetence.
For example, take a look at the announcement where they tried to outline the rationale for the decision and their methods. When they were bombarded with polite and sharp questions about their hypocrisy they avoided any response.
Not only that, apart from the decision, the way that it was implemented was so tone-deaf and juvenile that it went beyond mere incompetence.
For example, take a look at the announcement where they tried to outline the rationale for the decision and their methods. When they were bombarded with polite and sharp questions about their hypocrisy they avoided any response.
The thing is the people that are upset and claiming this is the end of reddit are actually the ones that are disconnected from what most users want as evidenced by the fact that almost no one but a small vocal minority in a few places on reddit care anymore and when they try to get support in more popular/general focus subreddits they are almost unanimously being downvoted or disagreed with.
> no one but a small vocal minority in a few places on reddit
Here is a front-page /r/news post about Ellen Pao: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3a85no/ellen_pao_must...
Read the comments. This is not a "small vocal minority". It's pretty much the entire fucking user base.
Here is a front-page /r/news post about Ellen Pao: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3a85no/ellen_pao_must...
Read the comments. This is not a "small vocal minority". It's pretty much the entire fucking user base.
I think you vastly misunderstand the size of reddit's userbase. Furthermore, it's been my experience that a small vocal minority produce significantly more content than the average user. And the single largest group of people with enough time to post all the time are children.
A vocal minority doesn't become a majority because they flood a thread about their current hate target.
Most users don't care about most subreddits. That's the way any big forum with many sub-forums work.
It's true that you get downvoted on Reddit for posting anything even mildly politically incorrect which is another problem with it - it's not a place to have any sensible political/worldview discussion anymore.
> It's true that you get downvoted on Reddit for posting anything even mildly politically incorrect
That's untrue and I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.
The whole point of SRS is to highlight "politically incorrect" posts that have many upvotes and few downvotes.
That's untrue and I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.
The whole point of SRS is to highlight "politically incorrect" posts that have many upvotes and few downvotes.
> They should have handled the /r/fatpeoplehate problem by hiding them from /r/all. Then nobody will see the subreddit unless they directly go to it and/or subscribe to it.
FPH brigades. FPH brigades other subreddits, and also other forums.
FPH brigades. FPH brigades other subreddits, and also other forums.
What about the brigading going on? If they had simply stayed in their little corner, no one would have cared. But they didn't.
Your personal reasons for not using reddit don't have any impact on the fact that most of the people switching over were either from the /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/kotakuinaction, and /r/conspiracy crowd. You can have whatever personal BS with the CEO you want, but the fact is that voat's ex-reddit userbase is all from what is essentially the worst parts of reddit.
You should not lump /r/kotakuinaction and /r/conspiracy in the same category as /r/fatpeoplehate. They aren't even mildly offensive - the only relationship here is that they tend to be zealous about freedom of speech, and therefore angry about the removal of /r/fatpeoplehate.
I would classify them strongly as "political speech", which /r/fatpeoplehate was not.
I would classify them strongly as "political speech", which /r/fatpeoplehate was not.
/r/conspiracy was harassing a daycare in Utah. I don't like to use that term lightly but yes, actual harassing. As in, the subreddit was obsessed with it because it had some records online that made them think it was secretly running some kind of malicious operation. people were going there and surrepititiously scouting the place and sending back photos and talking to neighbors. Admins were deleting posts, which is why it turned into a "free speech" issue for them and a bunch went to voat.
The difference between those subreddits and the ones banned where:
1) Magnitudes more users -and-
2) Mods were actively promoting harassment of individuals
Reddit admins had to step in because people were being bullied and receiving violent threats, in part due to actions taken by Mods of these large communities built on prejudice and harassment.
1) Magnitudes more users -and-
2) Mods were actively promoting harassment of individuals
Reddit admins had to step in because people were being bullied and receiving violent threats, in part due to actions taken by Mods of these large communities built on prejudice and harassment.
They are in the same category as far as SJWs are concerned because the are not "politically correct", or put simply they are not taking a knee and kissing the ring as SJWs demand.
This is why they have no problem simply telling lies about these subreddits (as they are lying about FPH). The entire point of KotakuInAction and GamerGate is to point out how dishonest this movement is... and what is the response? They lie about them!
Expecting dishonest people to respond with anything but more lies is a silly expectation.
The morally repugnant SJW movement is, at its core, a political movement. They succeeded in turning /r/politics into a monoculture around a single thought and the entire purpose of /r/SRS and all their activism on tumblr is to shame and harass anyone who thinks differently into submission.
This is why they have no problem simply telling lies about these subreddits (as they are lying about FPH). The entire point of KotakuInAction and GamerGate is to point out how dishonest this movement is... and what is the response? They lie about them!
Expecting dishonest people to respond with anything but more lies is a silly expectation.
The morally repugnant SJW movement is, at its core, a political movement. They succeeded in turning /r/politics into a monoculture around a single thought and the entire purpose of /r/SRS and all their activism on tumblr is to shame and harass anyone who thinks differently into submission.
You clearly haven't dived in too deep if you think /r/conspiracy is even close to among "essentially the worst".
They aren't the worst. They do say some pretty anti-semitic things at times however from what I've seen (some of them think the world is controlled by a Jewish conspiracy or some such).
/r/conspiracy has quite a diverse set of 'characters', the anti-semitic ones are merely one of the loudest. There's also the various 9/11-truthers, the flat earthers, UFOlogers, Christian/spiritual scientists, pro-gun/anti-federal government types, etc. It can be a pretty fun place to check out, actually, if you enter it with the right frame of mind.
Could you please cite the source on this? I've heard this asserted, but haven't seen the data yet. Would love to understand the dynamic that took place. Specifically, the data supporting the words "most" and "all" in your comment.
This isn't data, but this post and the comments are one point of reference. This in on the frontpage btw.
https://voat.co/v/news/comments/147052
https://voat.co/v/news/comments/147052
thanks for sharing!
Care to back that up with numbers?
I switched and don't frequent any of those.
Seems like you have personal beef with voat? Just stop spreading misinformation, or back it up with numbers please.
I switched and don't frequent any of those.
Seems like you have personal beef with voat? Just stop spreading misinformation, or back it up with numbers please.
[deleted]
> I just don't agree with shadowbanning people and removing -distasteful- subreddits. I just don't visit them.
Please don't misrepresent what happened.
FPH has been bullying, harassing, and abusing individuals for almost a year. Pictures of people out in public, Facebook profiles, other Redditors, the Imgur staff, brigading other subs (inc. weight loss subs), attacking popular bloggers, YouTubers, and people on Twitter. Often this was just for the "crime" of being overweight and the abuse was nasty.
I'm tired of people defending this behaviour as being "distasteful" or "offensive." Even the title of Reddit's announcement was "removing HARASSING subreddits." And if you don't believe that's what FPH was doing then you literally didn't spend even one minute on it.
Key Reddit staff quotes:
> subreddit as a platform to harass individuals
> We’re banning behavior, not ideas.
> based on their harassment of individuals
> When we are using the word "harass", we're not talking about "being annoying" or vote manipulation or anything. We're talking about men and women whose lives are being affected and worry for their safety every day, because people from a certain community on reddit have decided to actually threaten them, online and off, every day. When you've had to talk to as many victims of it as we have, you'd understand that a brigade from one subreddit to another is miles away from the harassment we don't want being generated on our site.
If this is what you support, please leave Reddit. I welcome you gone.
Please don't misrepresent what happened.
FPH has been bullying, harassing, and abusing individuals for almost a year. Pictures of people out in public, Facebook profiles, other Redditors, the Imgur staff, brigading other subs (inc. weight loss subs), attacking popular bloggers, YouTubers, and people on Twitter. Often this was just for the "crime" of being overweight and the abuse was nasty.
I'm tired of people defending this behaviour as being "distasteful" or "offensive." Even the title of Reddit's announcement was "removing HARASSING subreddits." And if you don't believe that's what FPH was doing then you literally didn't spend even one minute on it.
Key Reddit staff quotes:
> subreddit as a platform to harass individuals
> We’re banning behavior, not ideas.
> based on their harassment of individuals
> When we are using the word "harass", we're not talking about "being annoying" or vote manipulation or anything. We're talking about men and women whose lives are being affected and worry for their safety every day, because people from a certain community on reddit have decided to actually threaten them, online and off, every day. When you've had to talk to as many victims of it as we have, you'd understand that a brigade from one subreddit to another is miles away from the harassment we don't want being generated on our site.
If this is what you support, please leave Reddit. I welcome you gone.
FPH has been bullying, harassing, and abusing individuals for almost a year
Yes, and /r/shitredditsays has been bullying, harassing and abusing individuals for several years. But that subreddit is allowed to exist because Ellen Pao (reddit CEO) and admins agree with their politics.
Any other subreddit is deathly afraid to directly link to other comments on the site because they don't want to be accused of "brigading" votes which is against the rules and will get the subreddit banned. /r/shitredditsays links directly and openly vote brigades dozens of times per day. Again, because their political speech is favored.
Yes, and /r/shitredditsays has been bullying, harassing and abusing individuals for several years. But that subreddit is allowed to exist because Ellen Pao (reddit CEO) and admins agree with their politics.
Any other subreddit is deathly afraid to directly link to other comments on the site because they don't want to be accused of "brigading" votes which is against the rules and will get the subreddit banned. /r/shitredditsays links directly and openly vote brigades dozens of times per day. Again, because their political speech is favored.
> Pictures of people out in public, Facebook profiles
But Reddit mostly does not give a shit about posting pictures of people without their consent. Even on bis subs like /r/pics or /r/funny you will see pictures of people in public, which obviously did not consent to have their images posted there. So that's a pretty big double standard to accuse FPH of that while completely ignoring it on default subs.
And /r/videos time after time results in people harassing and brigarding youtubers.
But Reddit mostly does not give a shit about posting pictures of people without their consent. Even on bis subs like /r/pics or /r/funny you will see pictures of people in public, which obviously did not consent to have their images posted there. So that's a pretty big double standard to accuse FPH of that while completely ignoring it on default subs.
And /r/videos time after time results in people harassing and brigarding youtubers.
If they wanted to ban behavior, they should have banned the individuals from reddit site-wide. But that would have been hard, so instead, they go after the common banner that causes the behavior.
That IS banning an idea. They have essentially said "We're banning FPH for harassment, but if you participated in that harassment, feel free to browse our other subreddits."
That IS banning an idea. They have essentially said "We're banning FPH for harassment, but if you participated in that harassment, feel free to browse our other subreddits."
>>We're talking about men and women whose lives are being affected and worry for their safety every day
I was reading /r/FPH on regular basis for few weeks before it was closed as I've found it entertaining even if distasteful. I think you have very skewed view of what it was:
-posting identifying personal info was forbidden/removed by the mods
-linking to other parts of Reddit was a no-no
-I can't remember seeing anything threatening on it there was no discussion about threats or doing bad things to specific people; just over the top venting
That is unless you understand "safety" as it is too often interpreted today: hearing not politically correct opinions. If you think the decision has anything to do with removing harassing subreddit try visiting /r/coontown and think why it's still online.
I was reading /r/FPH on regular basis for few weeks before it was closed as I've found it entertaining even if distasteful. I think you have very skewed view of what it was:
-posting identifying personal info was forbidden/removed by the mods
-linking to other parts of Reddit was a no-no
-I can't remember seeing anything threatening on it there was no discussion about threats or doing bad things to specific people; just over the top venting
That is unless you understand "safety" as it is too often interpreted today: hearing not politically correct opinions. If you think the decision has anything to do with removing harassing subreddit try visiting /r/coontown and think why it's still online.
[deleted](1)
Unfortunately as is always the case with every popular social network/forum in the history of the internet when the "slimy runoff" says they are leaving what they actually mean is they are going to spend all day on in the same place talking above leaving and how shit the current site now is.
Reddit would be a much nicer place if everyone who threatened to leave over last weeks bans actually left.
Reddit would be a much nicer place if everyone who threatened to leave over last weeks bans actually left.
Tell that to the ghost town that is slashdot or Kuro5hin. To be honest, I see the same thing happening here already. So many posts on the front page with no comments, so much less comment activity than before. Feels like HN is emptying out.
Where they're going I don't know.
Where they're going I don't know.
Slashdot lost its userbase because new sites like Digg offered more frequent stories/variety and a better experience than the curated and infrequently updating /.
I was never a user at Kuro5hin and only checked it infrequently but I thought it was more due to lack of management than over management that led to the initial decline.
Digg changed the way the site worked.
I've been here a fairly long time and it seems busier than ever to me. I think a lot of the shitty pointlessly mean comments are gone now which just improved s2n even if it means less comments in total.
I was never a user at Kuro5hin and only checked it infrequently but I thought it was more due to lack of management than over management that led to the initial decline.
Digg changed the way the site worked.
I've been here a fairly long time and it seems busier than ever to me. I think a lot of the shitty pointlessly mean comments are gone now which just improved s2n even if it means less comments in total.
> Given that, it isn't wholly surprising that their hosting service wanted no part of them.
It is very surprising, the hosting company should be concerned with providing hosting... not moderating content. that's the job of the government and the legal system.
It is very surprising, the hosting company should be concerned with providing hosting... not moderating content. that's the job of the government and the legal system.
And the German government, like all governments, (although Germany's laws are slightly stricter than most western governments) puts limits on free speech. Reddit has a tendency to demonstrate Godwin's law pretty quickly. For example, it is common practice to upvote a post with a link to a Nazi flag and a headline about some hated group in attempt to get that to be the default image for Google searches of that group. I imagine with Voat being a Reddit clone, similar things have popped up on it. Something like that could run afoul of Germany's laws regarding how to portray Nazi history and iconography. I could imagine Voat's hosting provider wanted to wash their hands of the site before the government actually tries to come after them.
What's the logical conclusion of that?
The government forcing private companies to host content that they disagree with?
You can't have it both ways.
The government forcing private companies to host content that they disagree with?
You can't have it both ways.
> What's the logical conclusion of that?
Private companies should serve their shareholders. They should draft a policy saying that they don't get involved in content moderation issues as a matter of policy. That's good business and good for speech. If disgruntled people want to do something about it, they can take it up with the legal system.
> Is it good business? Or is it better business to have a clear policy over what is and is not allowed, and then enforce that?
It is not possible to have a clear policy when moderating content because the world is a diverse place with diverse opinions. Where would you begin? Are Muhammad cartoons banned?
Private companies should serve their shareholders. They should draft a policy saying that they don't get involved in content moderation issues as a matter of policy. That's good business and good for speech. If disgruntled people want to do something about it, they can take it up with the legal system.
> Is it good business? Or is it better business to have a clear policy over what is and is not allowed, and then enforce that?
It is not possible to have a clear policy when moderating content because the world is a diverse place with diverse opinions. Where would you begin? Are Muhammad cartoons banned?
Let's note that it's perfectly fine for a private company to limit their terms of service and reserve a right to stop hosting "distasteful content". It just needs to be declared openly in TOS. If it were so, probably voat won't choose them.
Is it good business? Or is it better business to have a clear policy over what is and is not allowed, and then enforce that?
False dichotomy. Nobody is talking about forcing anybody to do this. At least not the OP, and I didn't read it that way.
The conclusion of this issue is anything but obvious. It is hairy, ambiguous, and unclear.
An alternative could be: public shaming, and people taking their money elsewhere. There, no government required.
I feel he is allowed to at least express disapproval...
The conclusion of this issue is anything but obvious. It is hairy, ambiguous, and unclear.
An alternative could be: public shaming, and people taking their money elsewhere. There, no government required.
I feel he is allowed to at least express disapproval...
Right. Vote with your wallet, I guess. Don't buy services from hosteurope.de.
> Vote with your wallet
Usually doesn't do shit. The people voting, just like the people who are disgruntled, are usually a small minority. They have no material impact on anything other than the propaganda value of their actions.
Usually doesn't do shit. The people voting, just like the people who are disgruntled, are usually a small minority. They have no material impact on anything other than the propaganda value of their actions.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but you can certainly argue that hosting companies shouldn't censor or moderate their customers without rising to the level of a legal requirement.
Given voat's new community that content will be everything from the more "friendly" organizing harrassment and doxxing people to child pornography.
Nobody in his right mind is ever going to knowingly host them for long.
Nobody in his right mind is ever going to knowingly host them for long.
Do you want your company to be associated with harassment, even if you're not doing it directly?
It's not just the worst. Its people that disagree with the current fad of "politically correctness." There were very few people that were sad to see most of those subs go, but those subs weren't well known.
The FPH was a response to the silly "body positive" movement that has been encouraging non-healthy behaviors. (The execution wasn't popular, but the idea of it is well supported)
Additionally: Another big reason for the migration is that the ban came out of nowhere. There was no interaction with the Admins, and there has been a threat that has been expressed by Pao. ["We're going to make it safe" (for who and what political adgenda has scared the users quite a bit)]
The FPH was a response to the silly "body positive" movement that has been encouraging non-healthy behaviors. (The execution wasn't popular, but the idea of it is well supported)
Additionally: Another big reason for the migration is that the ban came out of nowhere. There was no interaction with the Admins, and there has been a threat that has been expressed by Pao. ["We're going to make it safe" (for who and what political adgenda has scared the users quite a bit)]
Its people that disagree with the current fad of "politically correctness."
Given that the subs which were removed were not removed for offensive speech but rather for encouraging and tolerating criminal harassment off-site, these "people" are either extremely misinformed or are using free speech/political correctness as red herrings to conceal their desire to harass and abuse.
Given that the subs which were removed were not removed for offensive speech but rather for encouraging and tolerating criminal harassment off-site, these "people" are either extremely misinformed or are using free speech/political correctness as red herrings to conceal their desire to harass and abuse.
FPH was posting photos of imgur's staff and sending them hatemail, I belive.
So there is a question about that I have for you:
Was it that they posted a picture of the staff of Imgur that hatemail was sent, or was hatemail sent because Imgur just decided to wipe them out?
----
Did FPH cross the line with the pic. Mostly yes... But they didn't put personal information on it. Nor was it an drive to attack them. (It was done in satire [even "the dog is fat"]
Was it that they posted a picture of the staff of Imgur that hatemail was sent, or was hatemail sent because Imgur just decided to wipe them out?
----
Did FPH cross the line with the pic. Mostly yes... But they didn't put personal information on it. Nor was it an drive to attack them. (It was done in satire [even "the dog is fat"]
Is Imgur required to host FPH content?
Imgur is a private website that can moderate content as it sees fit. They didn't want to be associated with a hateful community, imgur generally tries to encourage positivity from what I've seen.
The appropriate response is not to harass people. It's amazing how difficult that concept is. What might seem like "satire" to you is pretty messed up behavior, and in others contexts would be an outright threat
Imgur is a private website that can moderate content as it sees fit. They didn't want to be associated with a hateful community, imgur generally tries to encourage positivity from what I've seen.
The appropriate response is not to harass people. It's amazing how difficult that concept is. What might seem like "satire" to you is pretty messed up behavior, and in others contexts would be an outright threat
They are free to choose not to host the content anymore. I believe that any hate mail that they recieved, that was the reaction due to their decision. (Not endorsed by the subreddit it's self)
The mods were posting photos of imgur staff, and included the photos in the subreddit's css.
Seems like strong endorsement to me
Seems like strong endorsement to me
Given that, it isn't wholly surprising that their hosting service wanted no part of them.
[deleted](8)
I don't like you labeling those people "slimy runoff of Reddit's worst element". I think this kind of labeling is commonly used these days (and especially on Reddit) to shut down unpopular ideas.
There were 150k subsribers to fph and probably several times more readers. It was one of the most active subreddits at the time of the ban. How is it "slimy runoff of Reddit's worst element"? Maybe you know, there were many reasonable, frustrated with PC culture in there who just wanted to vent sometimes.
[deleted]
So they were lying in the github repo about "based in Switzerland, no censorship policy as long as content is legal in Switzerland" when it was hosted in Germany on one of the cheapest providers all along, subject to a ton of speech restrictions in law?
It's not necessarily a lie. "Based in" usually just means that's where they operate. The servers can be anywhere. I wouldn't fault them for assuming a modern Western country had enough freedoms to let them host their servers.
It would mean they didn't do even the most basic research though, as Germany isn't the first place you would look - it's reasonably common knowledge about their ideas of free speech and how certain subjects are really touchy
[deleted]
The thing I've found completely baffling about the apparent Voat exodus (although not from any Reddit communities I'm a part of, as it happens) is that nobody knows what the organizational structure or credibility of Voat is, and nobody even reliably knows who's behind the site.
The most that you can find is the GitHub source, which says it's "based in Switzerland, no censorship policy as long as content is legal in Switzerland". This may or may not be true. This was certainly not usefully true, if there's a German host with censorship powers.
The user agreement (https://voat.co/help/useragreement) calls itself "a legal agreement between you and us", with no definition of "us". It also has a DMCA response policy, which strikes me as odd for a Switzerland-based company (but maybe this is normal?).
The about page (https://voat.co/about) claims it's a project from two Swedish college students. Even assuming that this is true, this isn't such a best-case scenario: we've seen many examples of sites (4chan, Reddit, etc.) where the founders were in high school or college and were at least somewhat in favor of unrestricted speech, but as their sites grew, and as they themselves grew, they've changed their minds. (Incidentally, parts of the brain that regulate appropriate social behavior, like the prefrontal cortex, only fully develop by age 25.) Even if everything Voat says about themselves is true, we should worry that in a couple of years they'll grow a conscience too.
The most that you can find is the GitHub source, which says it's "based in Switzerland, no censorship policy as long as content is legal in Switzerland". This may or may not be true. This was certainly not usefully true, if there's a German host with censorship powers.
The user agreement (https://voat.co/help/useragreement) calls itself "a legal agreement between you and us", with no definition of "us". It also has a DMCA response policy, which strikes me as odd for a Switzerland-based company (but maybe this is normal?).
The about page (https://voat.co/about) claims it's a project from two Swedish college students. Even assuming that this is true, this isn't such a best-case scenario: we've seen many examples of sites (4chan, Reddit, etc.) where the founders were in high school or college and were at least somewhat in favor of unrestricted speech, but as their sites grew, and as they themselves grew, they've changed their minds. (Incidentally, parts of the brain that regulate appropriate social behavior, like the prefrontal cortex, only fully develop by age 25.) Even if everything Voat says about themselves is true, we should worry that in a couple of years they'll grow a conscience too.
I don't believe his identity is public but unless Atko has been spinning an elaborate lie, plenty is known about him and Voat. He's a Swedish student who went to college in Switzerland and this was a side project that blew up on him, not unlike how Facebook started. He just graduated from college, went on vacation with his family and is now headed back to Switzerland to run this like a real company.
I agree that the best case scenario for Voat is to inevitably do exactly what reddit is doing now, whether he realizes it or not. That's how it works. Right now Voat is amazing. I'm enjoying it while it lasts.
I agree that the best case scenario for Voat is to inevitably do exactly what reddit is doing now, whether he realizes it or not. That's how it works. Right now Voat is amazing. I'm enjoying it while it lasts.
I think it's more frustration with Reddit and looking for a place with less group-think and censorship than confidence in Voat. There aren't many alternatives to Reddit so people are trying w/e look like it could become one.
Is it really that surprising that a hosting company doesn't want to host a site containing a tonne of hate speech?
There's no amount of money Stormfront could pay me to host their vile outpourings; why should a small site hosting hate speech of every type kick up a big fuss about similar treatment?
There's no amount of money Stormfront could pay me to host their vile outpourings; why should a small site hosting hate speech of every type kick up a big fuss about similar treatment?
Then don't take their money. They didn't want to host voat then that's fine. There's a way to do get out of that too. Cutting cords and stiffing clients _is_ surprising.
Yeah it seems that the big no-no here is that they pulled the plug suddenly and without notification.
That's not a good track record to have with your customers.
That's not a good track record to have with your customers.
[deleted]
The funniest thing about Stormfront is that they run on PHP.
Yeah that is pretty surprising actually. If I had shares in that company I would be pretty pissed they turned down a potentially big client.
Hah. In that thread they have a comment near the top complaining about "censorship and outrage culture", and then on their home page they have a popular thread recommending that they all contact hosteurope.de's customers (https://voat.co/v/whatever/comments/146949).
I'm curious if someone with a lot of experience hosting in (or knowledge of hosting in) various countries in Europe, would opine on which are the least restrictive when it comes to speech?
Always host stuff that's "problematic" opposite from where it's problematic.
For example at least one European far-right site is hosted in the US.
You can host US critical stuff in the US, but if you start to attract a lot of traffic and active individuals, move out of the US. (Russia?)
For example at least one European far-right site is hosted in the US.
You can host US critical stuff in the US, but if you start to attract a lot of traffic and active individuals, move out of the US. (Russia?)
It's very unfortunate and reminds me of http://paulgraham.com/say.html
Hosteurope notes that this claim was completely false: https://archive.is/TqQDn It appears to have been a lie from Voat to solicit funds.
Freedom to assemble doesn't guarantee access to private venues. Contrary to intuition, all spaces on the Internet are private spaces.
That's not the issue.
Free speech does not guarantee you a soap box to stand on. If nobody anywhere is willing to give you a soap box that's your problem. Now there is an argument to be made that speech isn't truly free if you have nowhere to say it. However even with the laudable goal of ensuring all speech as a home somewhere, that still would not obligate any private person or organization to supporting it.
There is no public unowned property on the Internet.
If you downvote this comment it probably means you disagree with the sentiment but still choose to suppress this speech to express that disagreement.
There is no public unowned property on the Internet.
If you downvote this comment it probably means you disagree with the sentiment but still choose to suppress this speech to express that disagreement.
You stupid shmendricks!
Hosteurope is a German hosting company.
And we Germans have only very limited freedom of speech here!
Hosteurope is a German hosting company.
And we Germans have only very limited freedom of speech here!
Good. It's getting tiring seeing bigots, racists and assholes hide behind the veil of "free speech"
That's an awfully deprecating comment about a basic and fundamental human right. How can you have freedom without it also empowering people you'd rather weren't empowered? Have we all lost the ability to be discerning? So now we need outside entities to curate what we see, to protect our delicate sensibilities? Sorry, not me. I vastly prefer the risk of running into distasteful crap.
Freedom and laws are not mutually exclusive. Some forms of speech should not be allowed, specifically hatespeech.
I'm the first to say that private organizations are not required to host or entertain someone else's hate speech, but that doesn't mean that government organizations should be censoring it.
That's the key difference here. And the fact that the host didn't give them a heads up about the service cancellation.
That's the key difference here. And the fact that the host didn't give them a heads up about the service cancellation.
Agreed, and I should make it clear that I don't believe a private hosting company should have to serve any client they would rather not serve. Personally, if I were going into the hosting business I would set a policy up front that we're not in the business of moderating content, just because I think taking responsibility for it would be a nightmare. But I'm not in the hosting business and they should be able to do as they wish. Having done this, though, they will be obligated to continue policing the content on their system, or run the risk of being accused of bias.
I'm not saying they should censor it, they should make it illegal to begin with.
Personally, I'd rather live in a society where driving down the road screaming "die you fucking niggers" at black people is illegal, not just frowned upon.
Personally, I'd rather live in a society where driving down the road screaming "die you fucking niggers" at black people is illegal, not just frowned upon.
Threats of violence against individuals are considered outside the scope of the first amendment by the supreme court.
What about "Die, you people with red hair!" Can I drive down the road shouting that? Or will we need a government commission to study from time to time which groups it should be illegal to threaten? Maybe all threats should be illegal? Of course, it's often difficult to discern intent from speech, and some things that sound threatening might not actually be threats. Could get tricky.
The only people who don't understand this are those who spout these things themselves. They also don't understand private vs public or freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences
"Free speech except for things I find distasteful" isn't free speech at all.
I think hate speech should be made illegal in America like it is in the rest of the civilized world.
I think hate speech should be made illegal in America like it is in the rest of the civilized world.
Define "hate speech".
Thought experiment: you're running the government, your definition applies. Oops, your opponents just got elected. Now "hate speech" is expanded to include "criticism of the new government".
The term "hate speech" is just a blunt instrument used by people and organizations to attack "speech I/we find distasteful".
Define "hate speech".
Thought experiment: you're running the government, your definition applies. Oops, your opponents just got elected. Now "hate speech" is expanded to include "criticism of the new government".
The term "hate speech" is just a blunt instrument used by people and organizations to attack "speech I/we find distasteful".
I'm sure that law wouldn't be abused to silence dissenters ever
"Who watches the watchers" is a problem we have to deal with in EVERY aspect of law. There is a reason we have a judicial system and due process. There's no reason to think hate speech legislation wouldn't be treated the same way.
In Canada, "human rights tribunals" have been weaponized to attack journalists and writers.
See, for example, the case of Mark Steyn, who has been harassed by Islamic extremists deploying "lawfare" techniques to silence his freedom of speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_agains...
See, for example, the case of Mark Steyn, who has been harassed by Islamic extremists deploying "lawfare" techniques to silence his freedom of speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_agains...
Except that they haven't, it's actually a really good case where the law is able to discern whether or not something is hate speech.
You should be made illegal.
Really? Would you rally behind an Ice Cube CD being banned over racist lyrical content?
If Ice Cube was trying to find people's Facebook accounts, addresses or other information and then actively harass them, then yes, I would.
Then the issue isn't free speech, the issue is brigading.
If I thought Ice Cube was a racist asshole hiding behind "free speech" I would. Kind of like RaHoWa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahowa_(band)
Ice cube lyrics from song "Black Korea". Arent you going to rally against this too?
Every time I want to go get a fucking brew
I gotta go down to the store with the two
Oriental one-penny-counting motherfuckers;
They make a nigger mad enough to cause a little ruckus.
Thinking every brother in the world’s out to take,
So they watch every damn move that I make.
They hope I don’t pull out a Gat, try to rob
Their funky little store but, bitch, I got a job.
So don’t follow me up and down your market
Or your little chop suey ass will be a target
Of a nationwide boycott.
Juice with the people, that’s what the boy got.
So pay respect to the black fist
Or we’ll burn your store right down to a crisp.
And then we’ll see ya…
‘Cause you can’t turn the ghetto into black Korea.No because I understand the difference between art and conversation.
And RaHoWa isn't?
Yet, apparently fail to understand what constitutes speech.
if you feel that way, then reddit is by far the larger community when it comes to bigots, racists and assholes than voat.co because they are the home to /r/GasTheKikes and /r/coontown and many many other reprehensible subreddits
even so, you are still wrong because free speech means exactly that, speech that you or I may not agree with.
if it were limited to speech that only some or the majority aligned with then it wouldn't be called 'free speech' would it?
even so, you are still wrong because free speech means exactly that, speech that you or I may not agree with.
if it were limited to speech that only some or the majority aligned with then it wouldn't be called 'free speech' would it?
For the record, I would cheer those subreddits getting banned as well. Don't mistake my comments for a defense of reddit.
Free speech is freedom from government censorship. A private company is not obligated to host your filth.
And yet they do, check out /r/GasTheKikes or /r/coontown or many other examples
Free speech also refers to a closely-held cultural value in the US, that is to say the respect for private citizens to hold and espouse beliefs which others find distasteful or offensive.
Saying "free speech only refers to the government censoring you" (at least in the context of America) is like saying that American society and culture consist _solely_ of the official bureaucratic proceedings of its constituent governmental bodies. In other words, its intellectually dishonest.
Saying "free speech only refers to the government censoring you" (at least in the context of America) is like saying that American society and culture consist _solely_ of the official bureaucratic proceedings of its constituent governmental bodies. In other words, its intellectually dishonest.
No, it isn't. Further, why is the company obligated to associate themselves with your filth? Do they not have the right to not be associated with it?
[deleted]
I find it scary that so many commenters find this to be a natural course of action for a hosting provider to take. A hosting provider caring about what I host, other than whether or not it's legal, is just as absurd as my ISP caring about what packets I send (once again, other than the legality of them). While a hosting provider's role isn't nearly as "utility" as an ISP, it's certainly close and I would be appalled if the majority of hosting providers actually took stances like this. A minority is to be expected, no different than a book publisher only publishing Christian books, but if the average book publisher was expected to publish only Christian books, I would be quite frightened.