Rules: Do we need them? Maybe just the basics: No calls to or threats of physical violence? No doxxing (actual doxxing like posting home addresses not just discussing social media etc)? No spam, no pornography (unless specifically conspiracy-related ie Hunter Biden)?
I see the .win sites as a perfect stepping stone into the mindset of a true believer of free speech. But only if there is CLOSE TO ZERO censorship. We are talking about the control of information on an already paranoid userbase. The "people" posting and commenting that we need to ban people for shilling or just having a different opinion, are probably just too used to Big Brother mentality, or shills themselves.
It's up to you to figure that out!
The greatest thing this website can grow to be is a teacher of DISCERNMENT. This is not Reddit (thank goodness), and if we ever want it to be more than that, we must teach the newcomers how to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are people here that want to confuse and misdirect. Let them try.
If you are confident they are shilling, block them! Don't like their opinion, and can't have a discussion? Block them! I don't care, block me if you'd like, browse however you please. Just don't try to make this website a safe space.
If there is anything to ban users for it's CP (and for mod/admin to contact FBI). But that should be all.
My only worry for the site is the manipulation of posts by controlled groups up/down voting from differing IPs. Are there any solutions for this from other "reddit-esque" sites that someone has thought out?
Somewhat unrelated, as I'm just seeing the post-tag options now. I think there ought to only be four: Sourced-Theory, Unsourced-Theory, News, and Memes. The current ones (Memes, News, Videos, Tweets, Photos) kind of have some overlap. I'm thinking in terms of browsing experience and researching. Maybe even a fifth option for Meta posts like this. Anyways thanks for hearing me out.
the real problem is bots and multi accounts. if a person says a lot of shit that's fine imo. if they bring their friends to say the same thing thats fine.
but the issue is that ppl will create hundred of accounts to push their shit. then make bots. and it can be very hard to stop that. when one person has the voice of 100s, 1000s, etc. its a problem.
What about a mod of a conspiracy site that makes his own posts as honey pots, then bans and removes comments from anyone that disagrees. Then he deleted the post to obfuscate the evidence, posts the same thing again. Sometimes 3-4 times in the same day. What is this is all documented and ready to see but certain people back him and love it.
Would that be a cause for concern as well? Maybe giving someone too much power to craft the narrative they want?
I wonder.
transparency logs solve that case. not all things can be solved of course.
https://openmodlogs.xyz/?subreddit=conspiracy&mod=axolotl_peyotl
Moderator bias in its finest form. 1000s of comments removed that broke no rules. Anytime anyone pasta this, Axo refuses to address it or just cries shills.
Now I see he removed a post of mine here. Looks like the censorship has started.