If a website could be sure none of their users are malicious/bots and all of the users are perfectly rational and virtuous then public or private voting wouldn’t matter either way. That being nearly impossible, why not a reputation based system like Stack Exchange? Only when an account meets certain requirements they can vote.

To boot, on the website tweakers.net one can actually vote -1, …, +3.

• +3: “Spotlight comments are of such high quality and substantive value that they clearly stand out above the rest”
• +2: “Informative and interesting comments that are a useful addition to the discussion in an on-topic thread or the information in the article”
• +1: “Nice on-topic responses with knowledge that is common knowledge”
• +0: “Comments that do not contain a relevant contribution, but are posted with good intentions”
• -1: “Flamebaits, trolls, misplaced jokes, unnecessarily hurtful comments and other comments that violate our terms and conditions or house rules”

[Posted this comment on GitHub.]

What does the acronym SO stand for?

Fair enough. But a workaround that I have implemented before my previous “Reddit nuke” was saving all my most valuable answers and hosting them on my own website. What I would do now is just replacing all my comments with a link to my website: POSSE, Publish (on your) Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere. Well, almost POSSE, because I’d be removing the actual content from Reddit.

Had it happen to me too. They’ll refund you for this. Just be polite when asking for it.

My review on the Play Store: “Premium is a scam. Hides likes which come from all over the world (clickfarms?) even though I set my radius to 5 km. But of course they only show you the fake likes (all of them) after one pays for premium.”

I can’t disagree with what you quoted, nor state that it is a good argument—it isn’t, as was already pointed out and which I do agree with. I’m emphasising that they are not saying “the bombings were not as bad as people think”.

I’m just addressing the fuss that’s being created. They are clearly not saying “the bombings were not as bad as people think”, but the headlines and articles make it seem so.

By doing this we are using the same spurious tactics as they are. Inundating people with blown out of proportion news like this will desensitise them to step into action when it will actually be warranted—the boy who cried wolf.

They spew tons of misinformation/disinformation/fallacies that should be addressed instead.

Fair point. I should’ve made the distinction. But in any case, nuclear power plants aren’t bad.

• Our Friend The Atom (1957), educational video by Disney.
• The Safest Source of Energy Will Surprise You, spoiler: nuclear energy is the safest.
• Titans of Nuclear, nuclear energy podcast. If you watched the series Chernobyl, I highly recommend this podcast’s five dedicated episodes expanding on the misinformation it contains.
• Nuclear Energy, Zondag met Lubach.
• We have a solution for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

Not defending these two unethical bullies in general, but on this particular paragraph they are totally taken out of context. It is obvious that they are not downplaying the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but merely stating that nuclear energy is not bad since people are already living there again.

On desktop, either use:

• LibreWolf (FireFox); uBlock Origin is installed by default.
• Vivaldi browser (Chromium); has a native ad blocker but obviously supports extensions, and will try supporting manifest V2 as long as possible—“as long as Chromium core supports Extension Manifest v2”. Also, why the “not completely open source” criticism is unwarranted.

On Android:

• Mull