Hello World,
following feedback we have received in the last few days, both from users and moderators, we are making some changes to clarify our ToS.
Before we get to the changes, we want to remind everyone that we are not a (US) free speech instance. We are not located in US, which means different laws apply. As written in our ToS, we’re primarily subject to Dutch, Finnish and German laws. Additionally, it is our discretion to further limit discussion that we don’t consider tolerable. There are plenty other websites out there hosted in US and promoting free speech on their platform. You should be aware that even free speech in US does not cover true threats of violence.
Having said that, we have seen a lot of comments removed referring to our ToS, which were not explicitly intended to be covered by our ToS. After discussion with some of our moderators we have determined there to be both an issue with the ambiguity of our ToS to some extent, but also lack of clarity on what we expect from our moderators.
We want to clarify that, when moderators believe certain parts of our ToS do not appropriately cover a specific situation, they are welcome to bring these issues up with our admin team for review, escalating the issue without taking action themselves when in doubt. We also allow for moderator discretion in a lot of cases, as we generally don’t review each individual report or moderator action unless they’re specifically brought to admin attention. This also means that content that may be permitted by ToS can at the same time be violating community rules and therefore result in moderator action. We have added a new section to our ToS to clarify what we expect from moderators.
We are generally aiming to avoid content organizing, glorifying or suggesting to harm people or animals, but we are limiting the scope of our ToS to build the minimum framework inside which we all can have discussions, leaving a broader area for moderators to decide what is and isn’t allowed in the communities they oversee. We trust the moderators judgement and in cases where we see a gross disagreement between moderatos and admins’ criteria we can have a conversation and reach an agreement, as in many cases the decision is case-specific and context matters.
We have previously asked moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification when this was suggested in context of murder or other violent crimes. Following a discussion in our team we want to clarify that we are no longer requesting moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification in the context of violent crimes when the crime in question already happened. We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence, which is violating our terms of service.
As always, if you stumble across content that appears to be violating our site or community rules, please use Lemmys report functionality. Especially when threads are very active, moderators will not be able to go through every single comment for review. Reporting content and providing accurate reasons for reports will help moderators deal with problematic content in a reasonable amount of time.
This shit is exhausting and incoherent to read. Also, jury nullification is in no way, shape or form ‘advocating for violence’.
I think this is a good time to remind everyone that the strength of federated social media (and a big reason why we’re all here) is that no private company or country’s laws can have total control over the fediverse.
Everyone who runs an instance is going to have a different risk-tolerance for legal issues however, and I can’t fault anyone for making a judgment call that they feel best protects the server and their users. I don’t know anything about Dutch or Finnish laws, but I’ve seen many recent articles about people arrested in Germany for their social media posts that were considered hateful or violent (which is frankly a culture shock to me as an American), so I can see why some of the posts on Lemmy in the past week would be concerning.
In my interactions with the .World admins, I’ve seen nothing but people trying to run an instance in the most fair and neutral way they can, and I personally trust them to make the hard calls when they come up. That being said, if you’re frustrated with the legal concerns of a host’s country or have had a run-in with a mod that upset you, it only strengthens the fediverse if you spread out or create similar communities elsewhere.
We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence, which is violating our terms of service.
?? So, discussing jury nullification by itself, or suggesting ‘crimes that have not yet happened’ - itself is not a violation (i.e. someone should disturb the peace) but suggesting that “someone should disturb the peace and everyone on the jury, should they be prosecuted, should advocate for jury nullification” is a violation of the ToS?
I’m not understanding that part.
Specifically where it relates to violent crime.
Essentially it is supposed to make statements like the following a rule violation:
“If someone murdered [fictional person] they would totally get acquitted because any jury would just nullify the charges.”
While the following sentence would not be a violation of TOS:
“The murderer of UHC CEO Brian Thompson should get acquitted via Jury Nullification because [reasons] and this is super dope.”
The first example could be read as a call to violence, while the 2nd is not calling for a crime.
As I understand it “All future jurors in money laundring cases should nullify, because tax evasion is… like… super cool” would also be legal, because money laundring is not a violent crime.
Mods could still remove it though, not for instance ToS but community rules.
They could remove it by flip of a coin
True… then it could be appealed to admins I suppose. Someone could make an entire community dedicated to coin flipping, where that is the sole means of deciding whether posts get to stay or not. So long as no instance rules are violated, it’s all good.
Actually that would be funny, with like, a webcam of a little coin flipper bot.
Anyway I was highlighting a core feature of the fediverse…mods and especially admins are beholden to noone. All standards are a courtesy
Oh absolutely (and it wasn’t me who downvoted you btw, in fact I’m upvoting both here bc relevance). I would argue that there’s a social contract, regardless of money, to the people who contribute to making an instance what it truly is - e.g. spez did not “own” all of Reddit content. Though at the end of the day, don’t the admins have far more involvement in the matter than a mere lurker, and a mod perhaps the most of all, since they donate their blood sweat and tears into the thing that they build (or at least help build, as in curate) daily?
So if people don’t like an instance then move, and same with communities. I blocked !news@lemmy.world months ago and subscribed to !globalnews@lemmy.zip instead. The world is what we make it.
Not being combative but I actually believe there’s zero social contact… It’s an illusion of privilege. The fact that we even get to quibble about mod / admin behavior is at their whim. Now, sure, the ultimate conclusion could be that everyone leaves and they’re a mod of no one, but there’s a whole lot of sausage to be made between here and “server is empty”
removed by mod
Does this discussion really require ableist slurs?
Like, people are arguing about jury nullification when slurs are just flying around from .world users… What’s judicial process matter at that point?
money laundring is not a violent crime.
So it sounds like the laws prohibit advocating blue collar crime, but advocating white collar crime is fine.
That’s not what blue collar/white collar crime is
suggesting ‘crimes that have not yet happened’ - itself is not a violation
this was already covered. this is not a new change. if you write “someone should kill person XYZ” this is clearly a call for murder that we do not tolerate here. discussing jury nullification in the same context where murder or other violent crimes are suggested is what was clarified to be subject for moderator action.
It’s generally better to use generalized statements
Like “Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives”
That’s just a historical fact
How’s this one?
“Thousands of families are crying tears of joy thanks to The Adjuster, who was wrong to save all those lives and improve society.”
Jury nullification should not be a banned topic. It’s perfectly legal and is the only direct way citizens can object to interpretations of the law. The very fact that the courts and government don’t want people to know of it is a testament to its effectiveness in cases where the public will opposes the government in matters of law. Particularly when public opinion differs drastically from a strict interpretation of the law, but most especially when citizens find a law, its often limited proponents, or its execution to be objectionable, unconscionable, cruel, or unwilling to take circumstances into consideration. It’s crucial for us to all understand our limited power over the government, especially when it’s acting in an oppressive manner, violating human rights, ignoring the principle of justice in favor of a literal interpretation, or is otherwise objectionable by the majority of citizens as opposed to the minority of lawmakers.
He deserved it, and if you disagree, you’re a corporate shill. Murderers should die.
There are a large number of people on Lemmy who believe that you could be literally Hitler and that a human life is still worth saving. To some, human life is some unwavering near-godlike thing that nobody should ever take away.
But I like math. And I know that sometimes a -1 gives you positive values.
But I like math. And I know that sometimes a -1 gives you positive values.
It’d sure be nice if this guy’s death would result in fewer people being denied life saving care for spurious reasons, but I’m definitely not holding my breath
Already has in a sense, looking at the Blue Cross Blue Shield anesthesia rollback.
If that’s where it stops, maybe we’ll see a trend with deposing CEOs of malicious organizations.
Oh I bet it has helped at least a few. It won’t be long lasting, but some adjusters will have this pop into their head when they’re considering denying coverage for something they know they shouldn’t, and it might help influence them to make the right call.
I mean, if it were to become a trend, I’m sure we might see some sort of results. (Hopefully this is within the spirit of the new ToS.)
If things get better for a week while the insurance companies try to hide from the fallout, hundreds of lives will be saved or made measurably better.
If one harmful CEO’s murder makes society better for a week…
I’d be banned for finishing that sentence.
If only two people’s lives are saved as a result of it, it’s a net positive.
Yeah, because a CEO is ultimately just another employee in shareholder capitalism. If the shareholders want more money, and of course they do, things will continue as usual after this brief, unplanned change on the board. I’d fully expect anesthesia not being covered to happen too, just not right now, they’ll wait for marketing to says it’s safe in a couple months.
deleted by creator
His death alone won’t change anything, what will change this is something that violates TOS to mention.
Public healthcare is against the TOS to mention? 😱
How you can get public universal healthcare in a system designed specifically to deny it in order to make money is.
No I meant like, public universal healthcare would be a solution for the US. Instead of their private one. 😅
I agree that it would be. But enacting it and the methods necessary to do so are what I think the other guy is referring to.
But I like math. And I know that sometimes a -1 gives you positive values.
I really like this, I’m stealing it.
Hard to compare some shot CEO to Hitler imho
Not hard at all. Both responsible for many millions of needless deaths while holding power.
One side follows rule of law, while the company and shareholders he is working from require him to maximize profits at the cost of the insured customers.
The other side caused mass destruction across europe, millions dead, millions displaced, left countries in ruins and starving, gassed millions of Jews and caused mass chaos.
If he was to excel the expectations of the people he worked for he was supposed to decline health treatments. If he started performing worse for the shareholders he would’ve been at fault in the eyes of the shareholders and thus replaced.
Hitler on the other way acted on his own accord. There were no democratic institutions above him or really any to hold him accountable. The healthcare system on the other hand can be changed in a democratic system and political pressure. A dictator like Hitler certainly not through peaceful protest, as those were answered with violence and suppression
There are a large number of people on Lemmy who believe that you could be literally Hitler and that a human life is still worth saving.
There’s a disturbing number of people on Lemmy who are on board with Hitler, alive or dead, generally speaking.
Advocating murder says nothing about the murder victim’s character, and everything about yours. It’s like how charity says nothing about the people you give to, and everything about you.
I’m sorry if this isn’t straightforward.
Advocating murder doesn’t say anything about the victim’s character, and it doesn’t have to. The victim spoke for himself, making 8 figures by denying >30% of claims. The world is better without him, and it would be even better without more people like him. Hopefully that happens because other people like him see this as a sort of Ghost of Christmas Future and start getting their shit together like Ebeneezer did
Ask the ashes of Gaza’s hospitals how helpful a moral high ground is.
I have noticed that the people who are like “He’s a HUMAN BEING! How DARE you! He had a FAMILY!” Are often the same ones who spent the last year acting like genocide was no big deal.
Liberals will use a military-industrial complex to celebrate a good economy when the poor are forced between medical and rent bills, or eating this paycheck.
Murdering brown people is good for Geopolitics and bottom lines, so it’s moral and just. Self defense for millions of Americans as a wake up call is bad for the bottom line, so it’s evil and unjust.
Really easy to generalize a group like this. I’ve been opposing both the humanitarian crisis and genocide caused by Isreal as well as this cowardice murder of a CEO that changes nothing. I’m also against the medical insurance system in the US, I just think this action doesn’t do shit. It takes real energy to protest and mobilize people to make real change possible but that seems like too much for a bunch of people on here
Really easy to generalize a group like this.
Hence the qualifier “often”.
The way its presented is as if everyone or even most people are like this. “often” might be true but it isn’t really an argument in that case if you mean it literally
Good point: everyone who advocates killing billionaires is a revolutionary with a hero’s spirit. Advocating murder of billionaires means your character is great.
It’s genuinely hard to recognize when a rule that almost always applies doesn’t apply to the specific situation at hand.
Killing bloodthirsty rich people who are beyond the reach of the law and can’t be stopped any other way is a valid exception to the otherwise valid rule that murder is bad.
Yup, you’re right. The idea behind a legal system includes making murder an obsolete tool for defending and securing the freedom and security of each person. But when morally corrupt billionaires actively dismantle said system through propaganda and corruption of politics, murder becomes the only type of violence that defends the will of the violated, the only force capable of the otherwise forceless. It is not even the punishment that legal murder deserves, but pure self-sustainance.
I’m sorry, definitely on the fence philosophically about the line in the sand with vigilante killing, but wtf are you trying to say about charity and what it says about the person? I’m imagining someone sipping on their expensive tea sitting in their “designer” chair reminiscing about their grand-papi’s charity advice. Meanwhile, inheriting a large bank account and looking down on anyone extreme enough to illicit actual change in a defunct system that you benefit comfortably from.
If you’re unfamiliar with the realities of charities or meant something different than I apologize
We all die anyways too lol
So obviously the last part can be turned around, right? If we had reason to assume you kill 5 people later in your life, it’s worth killing you now, right? Or what is the cutoff value?
(mind you I’m not disagreeing with the underlying statement, but who gets to make the judgement call?)
Good thing no assumptions have to be made. CEO’s policies had already killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Yeah that’s why I said I’m not disagreeing with the underlying statement.
It’s crazy to see the stark difference in
- CEO killed and that’s bad, you can’t say anything negative about dead people with families
And
- President of Syria is dead and that’s good, we should all be able to agree that Freedom Rings with the execution of this human filth
Real mixed bag of moderation from a community that seems overwhelmingly in favor of killing certain kinds of people and extremely touchy about other kinds of people.
If you doubt this, stop and do one simple thought experiment. What would you be allowed to post on Lemmy if police identify, track down, and execute the CEO Slayer?
Ahh you see this has all been already settled for you, take the case of Twitter.
Calls of violence are not allowed on Twitter! Wow so simple right? What if there was a notorious user who was also a US President and made a call for violence? Well… guess what Twitter clarified those rules by saying:
You’re allowed to call for violence if you’re talking about America’s foreign policy.
That’s why you can say “death to Assad” but you can’t say “death to healthcare CEO”. It’s all propaganda anyway. While there are liberals who truly believe “all lives matter”, they’re few and far between, most liberals use civility as cover for their ideology. That’s why healthcare CEO death is bad, but Assad death is good.
You’re allowed to call for violence if you’re talking about America’s foreign policy.
Cool cool cool. Glad we got that cleared up. Liberty, Whiskey, and Sexy are back on the menu.
Hey the really cool question is: when is .World going to start complying with German law and purge all the pro-Palestinian content because it’s “antisemitism”?
Depending on which community you’re in, mods are already doing it.
It’s all down to the instance owners political compass. However they ‘feel’ is how the rules are made. They’re treading a very dangerous line given how this platform is still in its infancy and we all just migrated from reddit after their owner decided to do the same.
If you lift the hood of Lemmy up too far, I think you’re going to find a lot of the same cockroaches underneath.
I had a feeling that was the case. Going to have to switch instances and set my own up and only federate with ones that aren’t so censorship heavy.
If you want a US based-instance
- https://discuss.online blocks hexbear and lemmygrad
- https://lemmy.today does not block anyone
If you want a non US instance
- https://sopuli.xyz blocks hexbear and lemmygrad
- https://lemm.ee has a very short blocklist
Thank you kind stranger! I actually started a hexbear account just to see what that instance was all about… but those people seem … somehow beyond psychotic, hard to even classify because of how unhinged they are. It almost reads like satire half the time but not in a good way. So I just want to thank you for giving instances that block that toxicity.
Hexbear is something. !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works can be useful if you want to have a look at what is happening there
I’ll never understand this bizarre stance people have where corporate billionaires, millionaires and shit get a magical pass from the people. These scum, influence and infect countless of lives by one swift decision that could happen in a minute to even the next day. They are operating on an entirely different level than anyone else’s and the only other people that can understand them - are other millionaires and billionaires.
So what if one piece of shit CEO gets gunned down? I wish it’d happen more often, it’d send an empowering message. Trump could’ve gotten gunned down and that would’ve been the same level. I wouldn’t weep.
People forget these things until they hear the stories of their friends, their family, their friends’ family .etc all are struggling, suffering and on the edge of their lives simply because of one way or another - the fault of these entitled and rich shitbags.
I’m not excusing or condoning the actions any murderer takes. Life is taken of another life. But I will make exceptions to the rule and the gunning of this CEO is one of them.
Exactly that. And anyone shutting down the conversation is just siding with them.
I excuse this guy’s actions and hope it’s not just a one-time target. Shit has to change. Let’s trade in a few hundred for a few million saved.
Look, I excuse this guy action, and I’ll never shed 1/10th of a tear for the CEO And I’m rooting for smiling man to not get caught. But in Europe, we gave this prohibition about calls for hatred and murder. It’s culturally strong. Notice that it didn’t prevent us from guillotining a king or two. Anyway, give lemmy.world admins a break. There are laws they’re meant to comply to and we’re a vast fediverse. Better keep your anger for our actual enemies.
I left the instance because one of the mods was defending the decision to remove people discussing the Adjuster and said it was for God to judge.
I drew the line personally at someone using their religion to justify moderation.
That comment was exactly why i moved to dby0. That shit was gross.
“Only god can judge you. BTW, I’m judging and removing your comments.”
Adjuster is a class in an MMORPG I assume?
No, that’s what people online are calling the guy who shot the CEO.
How can I be angry when they silence my anger and allow them to continue profiting on the suffering of others?
If I understood correctly, they’re not silencing your anger. They’re complying with the “no call for the murder of a specific person”, and limited apology of murder, which is a common norm in Europe. You’re very welcome to shout that CEO are parasites and we know what do to with parasites.
This, for example, does not violate the TOS, as far as I’m aware.
This is how they keep us in line.
Funny, because these laws are based in large parts on normal citizens being attacked and called to be murdered, and hence laws were passed to make such things illegal. Sadly, and this might surprise you, underneath the CEO reptiloid skin is a human body, and hence they are subject to those very same laws.
It’s also important to keep in mind that you need to be more specific in your calls: CEO is a title that even people in smallest companis can have. We all intuitively know that we mean the bad shitheads when we say “CEO” in disgust, but there are small people CEOs that would not want to be called on to be murdered just because we think ACAB (All CEOs Are Bastards). Likewise even billionaires - if very rarely and naturally you don’t hear about that since they keep a low profile - can have positive effects, like the couple that had a big hand in how reforestation in Scotland has actually succeeded far faster than any other country has managed, simply by being up all the land from the private owners in one giant swoop. Are billionaires worth keeping around, conceptually? No, but maybe these come last? 🤷
deleted by creator
Exactly that. And anyone shutting down the conversation is just siding with them.
Not the point of the admin post up top, mind you. As so often, if you’re an adminsitrator, it really does not matter fuck all what you think about an issue, it’s what your server wants to, can or has to think about an issue.
Who decides who deserves it? How many denied claims qualify to deserve to be killed? 100? 10? How about 2? How about 2 that didn’t kill anyone but made the persons incapacitated in some way? That’s a slippery slope, and in these current times of misinformation and troll farms I wouldn’t like people to be classified as “deserving to die” by the internet, specially when a big chunk of society is easily manipulated.
So, numerically, I couldn’t figure this out easily to an exact integer. BUT, it’s very easy to figure out when taken to extreme integers.
I’d term this something like a “morality margin of error”. We should all struggle with questions like the trolley problem, weighing one life against five, debating the complicity of the action, etc. There shouldn’t be any easy shortcut answers to deciding the validity of life. But if there were TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE on the track that the trolley is headed down, and only one on the other, then those morality questions absolutely should get much easier.
Not taking sides here, honestly, but if the tally is at the very least “tens of thousands” and it is implicitly central to the argument being made, arguing over whether it would be valid if it was “maybe 1” will not connect.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the allies killing
HitlerNazis during WWII?Uh, technically a nazi killed Hitler.
Yeah, and the guy who killed Hitler got executed by the Nazis for it
True, it’s been too long since high school 🤦♀️
You decide. What’s the #?
I don’t even believe in the death penalty for most murderers.
But when you’re murder count would make any serial in killer that did it with their bare hands instead of an email in all of history, with the cold calculation of a sociopath, there’s really nothing more to say.
I can empathize with murders of passion, even misguided, ignorant hatred as that was usually something impressed into them, but murders of “We’ll if I murder these thousands of people, I can increase quarterly profits by 2.4%! Score!” then it becomes impossible. It’s like trying to empathize with a computer devoid of any humanity.
I wouldn’t disagree, but I don’t think the perpetrator deserves to go free either.
You had 25 upvotes when I loaded this page. Then I upvoted you. In the few minutes it took for me to find your comment, and then upvote, the refreshed tally is now at 36. It’s been maybe a minute since I loaded this page innitially.
we are not a (US) free speech instance
Thank you for reminding this. Some people always think that Lemmy.world is US-based or managed, while this is clearly not the case.
People also seem to somehow believe that free speech in the US means that private instances can’t deplatform you for the things you say.
I have no idea why anyone thinks that extends to anyone besides the government censoring speech or why they think free speech means freedom from the consequences of that speech.
deleted by creator
It’s still unethical to bar speech that you don’t agree with
Sure, but not if that speech is incitement to violence. Then it’s a legal responsibility to shut it down.
No, there’s no legal responsibility to shut down violent speech in any country, including the Netherlands. If there was, then speaking in support of capitalism would be illegal. If there’s a law on the books that says it prohibits violent speech, it’s not enforced consistently.
Try Germany:
§111 (1) StGB:
Anyone who publicly, in a meeting or by disseminating content (Section 11 (3)) incites an unlawful act shall be punished as an instigator (Section 26).
§130 StGB:
(1) Anyone who, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace,
- incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against parts of the population or against an individual because of his membership of a designated group or part of the population, or incites violence or arbitrary measures, or
- attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously denigrating or defaming a designated group, parts of the population or an individual because of their membership of a designated group or part of the population, shall be liable to a custodial sentence of three months to five years.
(2) A custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty shall be imposed on anyone who
- disseminates or makes available to the public content (Section 11 (3)) or offers, provides or makes available to a person under the age of eighteen content (Section 11 (3)) that a) incites hatred against a group referred to in paragraph 1 number 1, against sections of the population or against an individual because of his or her membership of a group referred to in paragraph 1 number 1 or of a section of the population, b) incites violence or arbitrary measures against persons or groups of persons referred to in letter a), or c) violates the human dignity of persons or groups of persons referred to in letter a) by insulting, maliciously denigrating or defaming them, or
- produces, obtains, supplies, keeps in stock, offers, advertises or undertakes to import or export content referred to in number 1 letters a to c (§ 11 paragraph 3) in order to use it in the sense of number 1 or to enable another person to make such use of it.
I’m fairly certain CEOs could fall under the “designated group” label but I’m not a lawyer. If that is the case, lemmy.world can be held accountable for the spread of content promoting their death.
CEOs aren’t a designated group, they’re a voluntary group. And 111 only prohibits advocating unlawful violence. It’s perfectly legal in Germany to say that criminals should be locked up. Imprisonment is a violent act, and it’s completely legal to advocate it. And criminals, just like CEOs, are not a designated group.
CEOs aren’t a designated group, they’re a voluntary group.
Oh don’t pretend you know what you are talking about. The German text says “vorbezeichneten Gruppe”, for which an alternative translation is “aforementioned group”. So the designated groups are “national, racial, religious or ethnic group[s]”. So yeah, CEOs aren’t a designated group, but not for the reason you pulled out of your ass.
According to the 2nd highest court in Germany that can only be overruled by the constitutional court:
A section of the population - the only one to be considered in the present case - is a group of persons who are distinguishable from the rest of the population on the basis of common external or internal characteristics of a political, national, ethnic, racial, religious, ideological, social, economic, professional or other nature, who are numerically of some significance and thus no longer individually distinguishable.
BGH 3 StR 602/14, decision from 2015-04-14
As a layman, CEOs seem to fit that definition due to their economic and professional characteristic.
This Wikipedia article has an extensive number of court cases and resulting applocations and limitations listed, in case you’re interested in learning more. The English version is far less detailed, so try translating the whole site, i.e. through Firefox Translate:
Sure Dragonfucker.
Netherlands Criminal Code
Part V. Serious Offences against Public Order
Section 131
- Any person who in public, either verbally or in writing or through images, incites another or others to commit any criminal offence or act of violence against the authorities, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine of the fourth category.
Thank you for your detailed legal analysis.
Please remove the personal attack. Thanks, MGMT.
It’s their handle.
Ouch
Brian Thompson isn’t a Dutch authority, so it’s not illegal to incite violence against him, as per your quote.
deleted by creator
There will never be a country that prohibits violent speech because it’s impossible.
deleted by creator
While you and I may give a shit about ethics you can’t expect everyone to hold themselves to the same standards unless you want your heart broken every day for the rest of your life.
Many Americans have a weak grasp on even the most basic details of their constitution. During my stay there, I heard “free speech” improperly being used as a defense by people of many different backgrounds.
This drives me crazy. I’ve commented this before, but I’ll say it again:
People in the US love to cry first amendment (freedom of speech, etc) any time something they say has consequences.
- Sexually harass a coworker? Freedom of speech!
- Business owner says something bigoted and people stop patronizing their business? Freedom of speech!
- Get banned from a Facebook group for being an ass? Freedom of speech!
- Kicked out of a shop for your offensive shirt? Freedom of speech!
Funny how the same people with wE tHe PeOpLe bumper stickers are the ones who haven’t actually bothered to read their own bill of rights. These people also seem to think that “free speech” (as they define it) should only apply to speech they agree with.
Those are the idiots, the real users of the first amendment are the assholes who allowed corporations to have free speech.
This is what led to to the Citizens United decision that has pumped billions into our election cycle (which now never ends). It has created a media that is dependent on those billions in ad revenue, YouTube included. And along with the Super PAC rules, allows unlimited bribing of our “elected” officials.
Exactly right.
Free speech means that the government can’t prosecute you for what you say (except in certain specific circumstances).
Free speech doesn’t mean that I can’t kick you out of my house for what you say.
What we need is a government-operated fediverse instance to serve as a public forum.
What we need is a government-operated fediverse instance to serve as a public forum.
That sounds like something Bernie or AOC would advocate for. It would honestly be pretty lit for a bit, before being taken over by lobby industry bots.
Usually bc they are trying to see if they can get away with that argument. And sometimes it works so they continue to try.
Free speech is a principle (like free trade) in addition to a fundamental right enumerated in the 1A enforceable against the government. People are making policy arguments when they discuss it in the context of private entities deplatforming advocating for private implementation of the principle into business practices.
Legally you’re right. But I think it sort of ignores the spirit of what that free speech should be and the reality it actually exists in. There are corporations that have reached a level of size and power comparable to governments. Plus the government in general is an arm of the capitalist class it represents. Most of the speech that happens today is on these privately owned services. To allow those large corporations to act as censors, it makes the protections on speech from government interference largely moot. Generalizing more, the way I put it is in America, you have freedom… if you can afford it. Sure, nobody is able to stop you from saying what you want to say. But you get to say it to a handful of people you know while a rich person gets to say it to millions of people through media channels and advertising. Sure everyone gets one vote, but if you’re rich you can influence a lot more than one vote (and you can probably buy more than one vote of influence with whoever wins.) You may have the right to an abortion, but if you’re poor you might not have the means to actually do it. People have the legal right to due process, but despite that, tons of cases end in plea deals or settlements because people don’t have the means to be adequately represented in a legal case. When the US legally abolished (most) slavery, many of the freed slaves ended up as share croppers, not much better off or free than they were before because they didn’t have the material means to exercise that freedom. Later, the US passed anti-discrimination laws. No more barring black people from living in some towns/neighborhoods. But despite that, the area I grew up in was still heavily segregated. Legal freedoms don’t mean much if you don’t have the economic freedom to exercise them.
Now, there’s clearly a line. It seems obvious that say, if you had some private chat room it would be fine to kick people out of it for whatever reason. And at the extreme end we have these massive platforms acting which perform the role of a public service but in the hands of private interests. There I think there should be limits on what censorship they should be able to do. So where do you make the cutoff along that spectrum? Idk. I feel like a Lemmy instance is probably closer to a private chatroom than a social media corporation. They’re small, they’re not run for profit, and they’re not engaged in any anti-competitive behavior. There’s not that much stopping someone from moving to another instance or even making their own.
A huge number of Americans are dumbfucks. I deal with that every day.
911 = life or limb emergency.
I can assure you that 98% of Americans can’t even grasp that simple concept.
Misinformation.
Many places here in the states don’t operate a separate, non-emergency line and calling 911 is appropriate even when it isn’t an emergency.
You should let them know that it’s an non-emergency upon calling.
911 = life or limb emergency.
But have you considered that my neighbors are being pretty loud, and I would really like some police to go knock on their door and tell them to be quiet?
I think the issue is, there IS NO major Lemmy instance that IS us based. So Americans just sort of clump where the other Americans are. Then, that sets the tone for where we are. Everybody has a us centric experience, and so it becomes well known that Lemmy.World is a us based instance…even if it’s not true.
So now all of it’s users are behaving in a manner which lines up with their own local culture, in this case America, and have no clue which other nations laws apply, or what those laws even are.
You could tell me that Germany has a law that every 300th meal has to be sausage and schnitzel. I would be doubtful that you’re telling the truth, but I’d have no leg to stand on to dispute.
So you say “Go to the american instance then!!!” And to that I say “It doesn’t exist. Or if it does exist it’s too small to notice.”
I’ve posting this a lot lately but
If you want a US based-instance
- https://discuss.online blocks hexbear and lemmygrad
- https://lemmy.today does not block anyone
See also this post: https://discuss.online/post/14151634
How dead is the .today Instance?
The stats are in the sidebar
I’m confused, what does free speech have to do with where the instance is based? This is the internet, what country is going to extradite a US citizen for making a comment on a defederated social platform?
The overreach is insane.
I don’t know anything about Dutch or Finnish laws, but I’ve seen many recent articles about people arrested in Germany for their social media posts that were considered hateful or violent (which is frankly a culture shock to me as an American), so I can see why some of the posts on Lemmy in the past week would be concerning.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13870047
If you are a US citizen and would prefer a US-based instance, there is
- https://discuss.online/ which blocks hexbear and lemmygrad
- https://lemmy.today/ which does not block any instance
Will check them out, just want to make sure they’re not like what the askthedonald became where it’s another echo chamber. I like perspective, but I loathe the virtue padded safe spaces.
They are only instances, you would still visit your usual communities. Their might be a change should anyone want to create a “AskUS” community there, but that’s not the case yet
I would argue that it’s certainly not clear. That’s probably part of the problem.
How is this not clear?
From https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
Our Governing Laws
The website and the agreement will be governed by and construed per the laws of the following countries and/or states:
The Netherlands
Republic of Finland
Federal Republic of GermanyIf people are looking for US-based instances, there is https://discuss.online/
That’s at pretty much the very bottom of the TOS and given the number of people who skim or don’t even read TOS and EULA’s (and the number of jurisdictions that have ruled they aren’t a binding agreement), I’d say something directly on the sign up page is warranted. Additionally this information is not anywhere that I can find on any sidebar or about section.
People don’t often “look” for instances specific to their locale when joining Lemmy. That’s a lot of the reason this instance is so large. I would wager that most people who are users of this instance do not know that this instance is based in Scandinavia (and Germany). I bet most of them are also unfamiliar with the laws and regulations of those countries as well.
something directly on the sign up page is warranted.
The sign up page literally asks people to write "I agree to the TOS” in the form, with a link to the ToS
People don’t often “look” for instances specific to their locale when joining Lemmy.
Not so sure, lemmy.ca, feddit.org, sopuli.xyz, aussie.zone and midwest.social are in the top 20 of most active instances. If you go top 30, you find feddit.nl, feddit.uk and jlai.lu
Don’t skip the bit about how many people often do not read the TOS or EULA. That’s important to what I am saying. I was literally told when asking about Lemmy instances that lemmy.world was THE recommendation for instances specifically because it was so large and active as a result. Just because there are other instances where the users are local to the locale of the instance doesn’t necessarily undermine my point since what we’re talking about is lemmy.world specifically.
And anything with a .uk or similar is more likely to be identified at first glance as being for that locale which means more of the users would naturally gravitate towards it. Like it or not lemmy.world is a jumping off point for lots of users, plenty of whom move on to other instances (some of which may be an instance more local to them).
Don’t skip the bit about how many people often do not read the TOS or EULA. That’s important to what I am saying.
The vast majority of the people on LW probably do not care. We see a lot of people announcing they are changing instances in this thread, but I would be surprised to see more than a few dozens actually do it, inertia is a thing, and a good portion of the people seem to think the changes are reasonable.
I was literally told when asking about Lemmy instances that lemmy.world was THE recommendation for instances specifically because it was so large and active as a result.
You created your account in 2023, when LW was a few weeks old, as well as most of the other instances. There was no way for people to know that this kind of issues would arise, at the time the ToS probably didn’t even exist.
Recommendations nowadays usually suggest Lemm.ee or discuss.online, as LW has become too large, and every decision they make have an impact on Lemmy as a whole, such as this one.
Like it or not lemmy.world is a jumping off point for lots of users, plenty of whom move on to other instances (some of which may be an instance more local to them).
But if they move to another instance, then the LW rules don’t apply to them anymore, so no need to change the sign up page?
But if they move to another instance, then the LW rules don’t apply to them anymore, so no need to change the sign up page?<<
You said it yourself. Inertia is a thing. Some people move on. Some people don’t and probably won’t.
Clarity is important if we’re talking about enforcing a TOS to comply with the law. Especially when the average Lemmy instance owner doesn’t just have a team of lawyers on retainer.
The point I’m making though is a lot of people (perhaps myself included) wouldn’t have come to lemmy.world at all if they had known that they’d be beholden to laws they had never even heard of and aren’t normally subject to in their daily lives.
I don’t think what I’m suggesting (I’m not pushing to enact the stuff I suggested) is all that unreasonable. But of course it’s not up to me, and probably not even up to the majority of Lemmy.world users.
But the .world part of the name is something of a misnomer if you consider how confusing it may be to new users, especially if this is their first foray into the fediverse.
I haven’t decided it’s worth the time to vet another instance to move to and transfer everything I have set up over to that new instance.
Though this wasn’t handled the way I would have personally handled it, I’m largely not too bothered about the changes because I’m unlikely to ever run afoul of them.
Even though I absolutely believe that karma is a thing, and you get out of the world what you put into it, at the end of the day I’m not on Lemmy (or any other platforms) to advocate for the death of people. Probably the closest I have ever gotten is saying something like “eat the rich” and that’s meant to be taken as having a healthy dose of sarcasm.
Why would you assume “.world” would mean the USA…? It’s obviously NOT USA, so why assume USA instead of the other 99.99% countries? Thats why you read the shit dude. This whole idea that the USA is “the world” is only in Americans head and it’s hilarious to see from the outside in this frequency.
There’s even a term for it since it’s so common “Americentrism”
That’s not what I’m assuming. The assumption isn’t that it’s the USA or any country at all. The assumption most people make is that they and their actions are covered under the laws of their locality.
The assumption most people make is that they and their actions are covered under the laws of their locality.
Yes, which means that the site owners have to deal with the laws of their locality, and may be held accountable under their laws for allowing the content on their instance.
Maybe unlikely to happen, but given the potential consequences, I can’t blame a small group of volunteers not wanting to take the risk.
More importantly: nobody has a right to assume LW is a democracy. Their instance, their rules.
Again. I’m going to stipulate that I do understand that the site owners have to deal with the fallout of that, in the event that they are private citizens and not business entities.
Section 230 in the US gives certain immunity in regards to content that is posted for social media platforms.
Provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances. <<
Meaning you can’t be held civilly liable for the actions of your users if you run a social media platform as a business. It specifically doesn’t consider social media to be a publisher and therefore not subject to the same legal restrictions as a publisher would be.
But, if the business is not US based, even if the majority of its users are American, it may or may not be decided that such an entity is subject to it (or that even if that business is subject to the laws of its locality, the US can and often has considered that immunity to hold which was not the intention (it was not intended to be used for global immunity)).
So if we flip that around, and take into consideration the natural assumptions of most users who may or may not be from the locality in question, they 1. Do not give any thought whatsoever to the owner of the social media platforms they use, and 2. Assume that any such legal action taken as a result of their personal statements or actions will only be considered in their own locality. This is human nature. I’m not defending it.
This thread and the original post are about adding clarity for users, moderators and admins of this instance. If clarity is the goal, users should be made aware of the locality under which the platform legally falls. Since we also know the average user is unlikely to have read the complete TOS, we know that having that information there at the very bottom and nowhere else means most users will not ever come across it.
Now, can we stop assuming this is just Americans messing it up for the rest, and leave the mentality behind and focus on the assumptions of anyone who might sign up here (from any country) that is not the locality of where the website is hosted or where it’s owners reside?
Nobody is asking anyone to take any risks here. I’m literally saying that the problem is that people make natural assumptions that most people are prone to, and as a result, a better way to inform them could potentially be implemented. I’m not even arguing that the owners don’t get to make the rules. I’m not sure where you got that from. That’s why I asked (not demanded).
If a mod (from say South American or Zimbabwe) was operating under the laws in their country and banned someone for content that they felt was against the law, but it was not against the law in the locality of the site or the offender, would that mod be in the right? There’s at least one comment I’ve seen on this post from a mod who felt a comment not in a community they moderate was breaking the rules and they admit their initial reaction was to ban the person before they realized that they are not the entity that should be undertaking that duty.
If clarity is important, maybe this should be considered.
You make some valid points. My take is that it is up to the users to comply with their local laws (EU citizens have been convicted in court for social media posts that broke local laws but not necessarily the site rules), and the TOS are not there to address that. It’s up to the instance owners to comply with the laws applicable to them, and for that they need to guide and educate the moderators, not the users (some of whom are going to ignore the rules anyway). So perhaps mods need detailed rules on what is and is not allowed on the site, but sharing that level of detail with the users is just sparking pointless discussions.
Anyone who wants The Adjuster to be imprisoned is supporting violence against him. Imprisonment is a violent act. Drag thinks the Lemmy.world admins should make sure to remove any comments advocating imprisonment.
How do I change instances? I think I’m on this one and I want off.
I’m gonna have to switch instances because of all the terrible shit the US does, free speech is the one thing we truly get right.
And I just want to let you know what free speech is when it comes to violence:
• yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is none: not protected
• celebrating the death of a CEO who deserved it: protected (the deserved it is irrelevant to speech, but fuck that guy)
• saying you wish other unnamed CEOs will be killed next: protected unless there’s evidence of planning and ability to carry out murdering a specific CEO
• saying you wish a specific famous person be killed, such as Elon musk: grey area, depends on if there’s evidence of planning and ability to carry out. Public figures are a higher bar to reach than the lay people.
• saying you wish to kill your neighbor John who’s not famous: not protected regardless of planning or ability, it’s assault
• saying you want to kill any person and having evidence of planning and a method to do so: not protected
• saying you wish for a whole group to die: protected if there’s no evidence of planning and ability to carry it out. One could theoretically march around with signs that say death to fags and that’s totally legal. Example: Westboro Baptist Church picketing funerals with signs such as that.
Edit: also jury nullification is not violence. You’re going with the assumption that the assassin is guilty of a crime. Is it really a crime to murder a mass social murderer? Clearly us Americans aren’t too bent out of shape that this CEO is now resting in piss.
Edit 2: would it be murder to kill Hitler after he started gassing Jews? Is it not because Hitler had an ideology that Jews were subhuman and to be exterminated? What’s different about this CEO? Sure he didn’t target specific groups like Hitler did. But his ideology is money above all, and he didn’t care how many lives he took to make that money. Why is this any different? This is the industrialization of death. This is a genocide against undesirables. Hitler killed disabled people (and LGBTQ) first before moving onto the Jews. Most of America is just numbers on a spreadsheet and when we become too expensive and cut into profits too much we become socially murdered. It’s not a crime when the rich do it to us (for profit!!!) but it’s a crime when we fight back? You Europeans are clueless!
tl;dr (if I am getting this right):
-
Sometimes moderators don’t get if something is forbidden under the TOS, or believe something should be forbidden but isn’t. Ask an admin if uncertain.
-
Moderators can further restrict content beyond the bare minimum of the TOS. Please don’t complain to the admins if a moderator does this (in good faith, obviously).
-
Conversely, moderators, please read the TOS and don’t tell someone something is forbidden under it if it actually isn’t.
-
Previously, admins told mods to remove content re: Jury nullification when discussing violent crimes.
-
Currently, this has been limited only to discussion of jury nullification of future violent crimes, as it could imply someone should actually perform said violent action because they would be acquitted via jury nullification. As far as I can tell, this is the only actual change of any rule in this post.
Summary over, personal thoughts follow: That one specific change, I don’t actually have any issue with. Reasonable enough. Obviously the devil is in the details of what is forbidden under “advocating violence”; that is a monstrously complex discussion beyond the scope of this particular announcement. Furthermore, the value of some of the clarifications in this post are dependent on admins actually holding an open dialogue with users, the track record of which is… variable. (I am still waiting on a response from months ago, which I was then told would be available in a few weeks.)
Additionally, since lemmy.world remains federated with other instances which tolerate unpleasant behavior and I see no indication on this post that this will change, this functionally changes little of users’ ability to access that content and contribute to it anyhow.
Additionally, since lemmy.world remains federated with other instances which tolerate unpleasant behavior and I see no indication on this post that this will change
There is nobody in this world who can act in a way that isn’t unpleasant for someone. This is such an unachievable bar as to be laughable.
Hi,
could you send me a link to the comment where you wanted a response from us. Sorry if we forgot to respond.
Hey,
I actually reached out via email and was in contact with someone at Info@lemmy.world. I can respond again and see if there is progress this time.
Yeah please do
It gets better. If you ask in a thread why something was removed they’ll just ban you for having content shown in the mod log
I have a question. Why not just specifically forbid talk involving deliberate jury nullification for the purposes of essentially helping to plan or otherwise be an accessory to a crime? Or just leave it as enacting/planning/otherwise officially endorsing criminal activity is prohibited under TOS and clarify that this type of talk about deliberately planning jury nullification for crimes committed is against TOS under this rule. That’s simple enough and wouldn’t have taken such a meandering and lengthy post. Additionally, the statement about what jurisdiction and laws this instance is subject to can be added to the TOS and the laws clarified with links to official documentation accordingly. This post is a mess.
endorsing criminal activity
Because now that wording, means anyone advocating for legalization of Marijuana falls under this umbrella.
As people we need to be able to voice our opinions on the legality and/or morality of certain laws. It’s a tricky thing to word correctly, while toeing the line of what is acceptable and what is not.
I don’t necessarily think that the wording helps in the case of marijuana legalisation. For instance, I can absolutely argue that an instance of jury nullification in the case of a marijuana user or dealer in a state where the accused was charged before legalisation took effect but who is not being offered clemency under the new law is justified. People should be able to voice opinions. And the wording they used isn’t better for this purpose given the hypothetical I just posed or other hypotheticals I could give.
-
Divisive topic and comment section, but IMO that feels like a fair change. No stance on this topic will ever not be divisive, but I think this is probably the most impartial stance that could be taken
The Netherlands, Finland and Germany are OK with me. As long as the MAGATs, Russia and China have nothing to do with Lemmy, I will carry on.
So discussion of jury nullification is ok as a general topic. If someone mentions JN in the context of a crime that has not yet been committed then that’s not ok. If the crime has already been committed then that’s ok. If the crime is not violent in nature then we can discuss JN, and if we are just having a general conversation about JN that’s ok too.
Specifically, the concern is that talking about JN in the context of some hypothetical violent crime that has not yet been committed could be interpreted as advocating for violence.
This sounds pretty stupid so far, but my question is then, why wrap the ToS around specifically jury nullification? Why not just reiterate the ‘no advocating for violence’ policy.
If someone is advocating for violence, then adding on some point about jury nullification is irrelevant, they are already breaking the rule.
Delay deny depose :3
Who made a death threat here?
