Voat is censored. Just the fact that my account will soon be restricted because the comments on this thread alone is proof of censorship. I shouldn't be punished for replying. Soon I'll be at -50 and unable to post all because of this thread and my comments in it. That's not freedom of speech at all. Freedom of speech. noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. That is the legal definition of freedom of speech in America where Voat is incorporated. The down voting system poses a restraint to free speech. -50 results in account restrictions. This means that you can be silenced for saying things that people don't agree with. This means you're forced to restrict your own speech and limit it to uncontroversial posts or you risk being down voted. Another flaw is that if people down vote your submissions it will also result in account restrictions. I've posted links with original titles and was down voted for it. A user should not be punished for posting links with original titles. 2 or 3 people can go through any users comment history and DV every comment and eventually their accounts will become restricted. The point is, down votes are a result of different opinions and should not result in the unpopular opinion holder being punished. That is not how free speech is supposed to operate. What happens to me is I'll post a submission and people will bait me out into replying at a high rate and then they'll indiscriminately down vote whatever I say. Then the down votes add up and I'm silenced. This forces me or any other user in this position to either: A) Not reply and defend their position. B) Reply and get down voted ( eventual restrictions). Remember, the legal definition of freedom of speech is, " the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint." It's a fact that down votes are a restraint. Now, the most common reasons given to falsely justify this system of censorship are, 1) You're Amalek. This system doesn't just affect me,and many others have mentioned it. 2)Voat isn't doing the censorship, the users are. The source is irrelevant. What matters is that there is censorship. It doesn't matter where it's coming from. 3) Down voting me is their right of expression Yes, but your freedom shouldn't infringe and restrict others. 4) I'm not friendly. Even if that were true, it shouldn't revoke my right to free speech. Another flaw, is why would a user put any real thought and effort into a post or comment when they can be punished for it and have it used against them? When I'm debating something with a user that has DV privileges they sometimes just DV me indiscriminately. So why even reply? Why do people even argue with me if only to keep down voting whatever I say ? It forces me to back down and not reply to users with DV privileges. Remember, the definition of freedom of speech is: the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Now, if anybody else would like to debate this feel free to ask me anything youd like.