all 3 comments

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This issue is very important.

I respect the way Voat is handling this. They are openly discussing it before any action is taken. And even if some action taken is disagreeable to anyone at least its being done in the open, as is their perogiative. This is how SaidIt seems to be doing it too. Though I don't understand the hesitation of magnora7 and d3rr to tweak the code if they openly discuss it first, during, and or after - so that folks know and understand the process, even if they may not like it.

*The openness is how the trust is earned, * with actions and results secondary.

Obviously other corporations don't give a fuck about such things.

Out of curiosity, SaidIt has a canary. Maybe draft something like the Purism corporation's higher morality thingy?

[–]Broken-needles350[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

nah, its not rly, its a stupid issue that a company started over a name.

this is the is the equivalent of "Hi bob, im bob. WHAT!? YOU CANT USE THAT NAME, IM THE ONLY ONE ALLOWED TO WEAR THE NAME BOB!!"

yea, i agree with the way voat is handling it, but they shouldnt have to be handling it to begin with, rofl.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Not the company. That is what it is.

The important part is the openness of VOAT and how they have a problematic technical issue requiring an extra level of trust from it's users, because messing with the database could be opening a can of worms if not done properly.