Inyonim.com Under Fire: Is the Founder Running the Site Solo Under Multiple Accounts?
The implications are serious. If a single individual controls several of these accounts, they effectively have the power to decide which articles see the light of day—and which ones never make it past moderation. This is a tool for silencing criticism.
A closer look at Inyonim.com reveals troubling signs that the platform may be far from the democratic forum it claims to be. Evidence suggests that the founder may be running multiple “vaad” accounts—high-level accounts that require 200 points to access, a threshold that is currently unreachable for ordinary users.
Multiple Accounts, One Voice
The implications are serious. “Vaad” accounts control what content gets posted and approved. If a single individual controls several of these accounts, they effectively have the power to decide which articles and posts see the light of day—and which ones never make it past moderation. This is not just a flaw in the system; it’s a potential tool for silencing criticism.
Suppressing Criticism, Protecting Power
With this level of control, the founder could remove or block any post that questions his actions or policies, while favoring content that reinforces his own perspective. The very structure of the site gives him the ultimate veto power, disguised as community governance.
Transparency—or the Lack Thereof
The only way to prove that the site isn’t entirely biased is for the founder to allow this article—and any other criticism—to be published. If it appears, it would be the strongest evidence that the platform is not just a personal echo chamber. But so far, the pattern of “vaad” accounts raises more questions than answers.
Conclusion: A Platform in Crisis
Inyonim.com risks losing credibility if this lack of transparency continues. A platform that allows one person to hold multiple “seats” in its decision-making process cannot claim to be a fair or open forum. Until the founder demonstrates accountability, users are left to wonder: is Inyonim.com a community, or a personal megaphone?
But then, you look at the URL bar.
You realize you are reading this exact article—an expose detailing the corruption and censorship of the platform—right here, front and center, on Inyonim.com.
Which means one of two things happened. Either the “tyrannical founder” fell asleep at the wheel, or he looked at a scathing takedown of his own project, shrugged, and hit the green Approve button anyway.
Suddenly, the narrative of a silenced community gets a little complicated. If the "Vaad" was truly a puppet regime designed to crush dissent, this post would be in the digital trash can. Instead, it’s trending. It turns out that the multiple "Vaad" accounts might not be a conspiracy to hoard power, but simply empty seats at a table waiting for actual users to show up and claim them.
So, the founder isn't silencing the room; he’s just the only one currently shouting into the microphone to make sure it works. And considering he just handed the mic to his biggest critic—this article—it seems the platform might be a lot more open than the conspiracy theories suggest.
Do not be fooled by the optics.
The approval of this article is not proof of openness. It is theater.
Allowing one loud, highly visible critique through the gates does not mean the gates are open. It means someone chose to open them at that exact moment, for that exact purpose. Selective dissent is not freedom. It is stage management.
And let’s address the uncomfortable possibility no one wants to say out loud. This article itself may not be an act of rebellion at all. It may simply be another voice from the same mouth. Another anonymous account. Another mask. Another face in a system already filled with them. When a platform is built on anonymity and unreachable power thresholds, manufactured controversy becomes effortless.
Think about it. What better way to “prove” you are not censoring than to approve a dramatic accusation against yourself, then respond to it, then point to the exchange as evidence of fairness. That is not transparency. That is narrative control.
Even if this post stays up forever, it proves nothing. A ruler does not stop being a ruler because he allows one protest in the town square that he owns, schedules, and polices. Especially when he still decides who gets a microphone, who gets buried, and who never appears at all.
The real issue has never been whether criticism is allowed once. The issue is who holds the keys permanently. Who controls the Vaad accounts. Who decides what reaches the front page and what disappears quietly. Until there is real, verifiable separation between ownership, moderation, and users, every post on this site is suspect, including this one.
If trust is truly the goal, the fix is simple. Show the structure. Show the numbers. Show that these accounts belong to different real people. Until then, dramatic self-criticism is not bravery. It is branding.
Do not confuse a carefully approved accusation with accountability. One is easy. The other is still missing.
The Real Test
Here is the real test, and it is much simpler than all this commentary.
If this platform is not a dictatorship, then power should be transferable. Not hypothetically. Not someday. Not after earning points that no normal user can reach. Right now.
The only way to prove to me that this is not a one man system is to make my account a Vaad account. Not as a favor. Not as a gesture. As a demonstration. Give real moderation power to a real critic who is not anonymous, not aligned, and not controlled.
Anything less is just optics. Allowing criticism while keeping all actual authority locked behind unreachable walls is not openness. It is containment.
If the founder truly believes in community governance, then sharing control should not be threatening. If giving one outspoken critic a seat at the table feels dangerous, that alone answers the question everyone is asking.
Until real power is shared with people who did not create the system and do not benefit from defending it, this platform remains what it looks like. A closed room with many voices, all speaking at the permission of one hand.
Do not confuse a carefully approved accusation with accountability. One is easy. The other is still missing.
"Thread entries are reviewed by the thread owner before being added."
So it says when you want to continue a thread. I am the thread owner here, and I have not been asked to approve any of the continuations of this thread...
Animosity
Reports suggest that depression is up by 30% across the country due to the publication of a new website "Inyonim.com."
Many are experiencing "Not Va'ad dejection syndrome" and "Chronic Jaded of not complaining."
The piece above me, actually, was published by the author himself.
But I think the issue is rooted deeper. It's sourced in the fact that not all features of this site are robust -- like we all dream them to be.
Bearing that in mind will help bare the catastrophy and help balance life in a meaningful way and instead of combating inyonim.com.
And no, I will not make you Va'ad unless I see you fit to kick start the site. Until then, you'll have to earn it up, and continue to be sour about it.
With all due respect...
Life is full of uncertainties. You will never really know if the site is moderated by a single person, a Vaad, or maybe just bots.
But if you enjoy reading, or writing, keep going.
Please, let's get it going!
Disappearing articles...
I was going to make this a separate article, but I figure it fits in here.
In the last couple of days, there was more than one incident where I read an article, but when I reloaded the page it disappeared. I asked a friend who is a Vaad member and he said it is not possible for him to just delete an article. Must be coming from the YOR then.
There was nothing I can think of that would be a valid reason for deleting the articles.
If you had similar experiences please speak up