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.
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.
Itβd sure be nice if this guyβs death would result in fewer people being denied life saving care for spurious reasons, but Iβm 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.
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.
I mean, if it were to become a trend, Iβm sure we might see some sort of results. (Hopefully this is within the spirit of the new ToS.)
His death alone wonβt change anything, what will change this is something that violates TOS to mention.
Public healthcare is against the TOS to mention? π±
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. π
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.
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.
I really like this, I'm stealing it.
We all die anyways too lol
There's a disturbing number of people on Lemmy who are on board with Hitler, alive or dead, generally speaking.
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
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.
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.
Ask the ashes of Gazaβs 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
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
Your gripe about the CEO's killing seems to be that it doesn't change anything. The people I described aren't arguing that it doesn't change anything. They're centrists who don't want to change anything. They're arguing like the hypocrites they are that this CEO's life was precious and how DARE anyone extract any epicaricacy from this, when just a little over a month ago they screamed that anyone who wasn't as on board with genocide as they were must be trump supporters.
Have you considered that I wasn't talking about you?
I personally think even in this case a precious life is lost. I haven't dug into the potential use of AI to deny claims which is highly unethical. I come more from an approach of utilitarianism: Every life/lifetime has some sort of potential joy and value to it. If for example a regime falls and a dictator causing a lot of loss of value (in this case life and quality of life) dies, the equation is a positive one if people get to live longer better lives. The dictator is the main reason for suffering.
In the case with the CEO he isn't the main reason for suffering, rather the system is. He has to bear part of the responsibility but his death doesn't have a positive outcome in our equations because the death changes nothing. He also isn't fully responsible for the system which is the root problem of the health system.
I myself also believe generally murder is in nearly all cases wrong, and does while I am against the Genocide in Gaza I do think you're at least partially talking about my group and generalizing it to make an obscene argument. Your example is actually perfect valid and if a person doesn't care about genocide/death in gaza they can't claim the moral high ground if they only value this kind of life. Its also distracting a bit from the main point of life and especially a life of good quality having value.
Then we have nothing to discuss.
Good point: everyone who advocates killing billionaires is a revolutionary with a hero's spirit. Advocating murder of billionaires means your character is great.
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
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
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.