this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
236 points (63.9% liked)

Lemmy.World Announcements

29148 readers
1 users here now

This Community is intended for posts about the Lemmy.world server by the admins.

Follow us for server news 🐘

Outages πŸ”₯

https://status.lemmy.world/

For support with issues at Lemmy.world, go to the Lemmy.world Support community.

Support e-mail

Any support requests are best sent to [email protected] e-mail.

Report contact

Donations πŸ’—

If you would like to make a donation to support the cost of running this platform, please do so at the following donation URLs.

If you can, please use / switch to Ko-Fi, it has the lowest fees for us

Ko-Fi (Donate)

Bunq (Donate)

Open Collective backers and sponsors

Patreon

Join the team

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 96 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I can understand (though not agree) with banning clear advocation for violence of CEOs, but the "I haven't had a reason to smile this much in a while" message that got the user banned was too far.

We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence

I see jury nullification as similar to self defense, just at a larger scale. I take this message as "You're not allowed to talk about defending yourself for future occasions, only ones that have already happened."
I guess talking about owning a gun for self defense can be seen as "advocating for violence" but that's a narrow minded view, where nullification is only used when the ethics are on the greater good, like thousands of deaths vs the one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 89 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Broseph, I can't have sympathy. The income inequality won't let me. People aren't cheering the unaliving necessarily, but the fact that one of these people actually answered for their crimes, in whatever form that took. Because courts weren't gonna make him.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 89 points 1 week ago (73 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Drag sounds like a hoopy frood, as does The Adjuster. Ford agrees

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (72 replies)
[–] [email protected] 85 points 1 week ago (6 children)
  1. If Jury Nullification is legal and allowed, then frankly covering that exact thing up is an abomination and y'all should be utterly ashamed of yourselves. Since when is Lemmy in the habit of backing an establishment while not allowing people involved to know the full picture? Genuinely shameful and disgusting behavior.

  2. Yeah, I'm not going to ever remove anything from my communities relating to that or to the violence against the CEO. There is no difference between Brian Thompson and any other mass murderer on the planet. Are you asking me to protect Hitler or Pol Pot as well from criticisim and glee over their death? No? Then I am sure as fuck not going to do it for this guy.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 79 points 1 week ago (20 children)

Really? Jury nullification???

Glad I didn't join your instance because that is fucking insane.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 76 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Translation: move instances

Its a good idea to give them competitors anyways.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 week ago (13 children)

Hmm, maybe a change of scenery is needed. .this place is getting stupid. I haven't seen a single comment actually advocating for violence, mostly just people who aren't sad that this happened. Your mods have also demonstrated a lack of impartial judgemental in the past, and it's starting to show.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 week ago

I doubt that's true, but if it is, you can see plenty of them in the Lemmy.world modlog over the past few days. It is a public modlog.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 week ago

I haven’t seen a single comment actually advocating for violence

It's almost as if the mods are doing their jobs...

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

I think diversifying mods is a good idea.

The one who "misinterpreted" the rules is a mod of pretty much all the main subs on world.

There's a handful of accounts like that. And they hold way too much sway on the instance as a whole. It's what got reddit in trouble. Mods would add each other as mods in other subs, and it ended up with a whole bunch of super mods with way more influence then they should have had. Especially since that mainly happens when mods agree on things.

Make a limit, even 10 which feels huge would be better than nothing.

Otherwise a handful of people can chase away the entire userbase. Because when a big news story breaks, they control almost all the serious discussions. Which is what happened here. And it'll happen again if things dont change.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

many communities would be happy to have more mods. many of these cases come from the lack of people volunteering to moderate a community. this is already being considered when people are promoted as moderators in communities by our admin or community team if a community doesn't have active moderators. we already try to find people that aren't already moderating as many communities in those cases.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 week ago (18 children)

Is your opinion that advocating for jury nullification would constitute some violation of Dutch, Finnish or German law based on legal advice?

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 week ago (4 children)

My takeaway? It seems like the admins tried making it a banned topic, but the pushback was so great that they eventually said "Ok, ok, murder is bad. Going forward, no murder.....but just this once."

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 week ago (5 children)

That's kind of what happened in Politics when Kissinger died... "No celebrating death... but it IS Kissinger..."

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 week ago (8 children)

7 paragraphs of water. Did you want to convey your point or just to write something?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Lame. Jury nullification is good and necessary in this case. Saving people's lives shouldn't get you punished, regardless of your motives.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

At what point is supporting the prosecution of this assassin advocating for violence? The social murder done by the CEO is so many orders of magnitude greater, and the state will do violence to the killer to defend the industry's right to do social violence.

Nobody was having this conversation when people rightly cheered the deposing of Assad. Guess what? That involved violence, a lot of it. That was state-backed violence too though, so I guess we're all just fine with it.

The state calls its own violence "law" and that of the people "crime".

I guess lemmy.world is happy to just go along with whatever the state wants. It's just insulting that you pretend it's about "violence" and you expect people to believe you.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 week ago (25 children)

Wow I wasn't even planning to leave but this nonsense just convinced me. Thanks!

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Personally my big takeaway from the comments here is that either many people think administrating a large internet platform is a joke and happens on its own and you don't find 10+ legal notices in the PO box every week, or that - and I've read about this before - reading comprehension in the english-speaking world has fallen dramatically in recent years and people are genuinely unable to read paragraphs of text of non-trivial content and/or shifting subjects within same sentences, something you learn around 6th grade in school but sadly rarely need after school in modern times.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

I don't even believe in the death penalty for most murderers.

But when your murder count would make any serial killer that did it with their bare hands instead of an email in all of history blush, with the cold calculation of a sociopath, there's really nothing more to say.

That doesn't even feel like murder, that feels like an ongoing mass slaughter.

I can empathize with murders of passion, even misguided, ignorant hatred as that was usually something impressed into them, and can relate to the very human secondary emotion of anger even if felt in ignorance, but murders of "Well if I murder these thousands of people on this newly discovered loophole, 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.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 week ago

There's also the point that he was continuing to kill thousands of people, on an ongoing basis.

Vigilante justice for someone who killed in the past, bad.

Someone taking down a killer mid-rampage? Hero.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Goodbye, LW, parts of this have been nice but this is where I draw the line. The administration has been clear as mud on this subject with very subjective justification for the nullification of reasonable discourse. I'm going to keep my account for a brief amount of time but I fully intend to delete it in the next week. This is the last thing I'm commenting, upvoting, etc. All of my engagement ceases now beyond this comment.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Lol we left reddit for this? Now this is quite an unexpected nullification of jury duties of internet mods. I reject your reality and inject my own ya buncha bozos.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have read it all, and i genuinely still don't know how or what is applied to the dead CEO.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago (16 children)

Everyone who opposes the assassination of one CEO is glorifying the thousands of murders he committed. It's one or the other.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago

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

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Aight, guess I'll start looking for a better instance

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 week ago (6 children)

So is the manifesto allowed to be posted on .world?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί