this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024

-12 points (16.7% liked)

Lemmy.World Announcements

29163 readers

39 users here now

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

Follow us for server news 🐘

Outages 🔥

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 info@lemmy.world e-mail.

Report contact

DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport
Email report@lemmy.world (PGP Supported)

Donations 💗

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

Join the team

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

ruud@lemmy.world

lwadmin@lemmy.world

lwCET@lemmy.world

jelloeater85@lemmy.world

Serinus@lemmy.world

lw_mod_notification@lemmy.world

-12

Removal of piracy communities (lemmy.world)

submitted 9 months ago by lwadmin@lemmy.world to c/lemmyworld@lemmy.world

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Removal of piracy communities

Hello world!

Some of you will already have noticed that we have removed some piracy related communities from Lemmy.World during the last day.

Lack of communication

First off, we want to address the lack of communication.

Not everyone in our current admin team has been with us long enough to be aware of the previous issues and discussions related to these communities and the impact this has on our community.

We should absolutely have published this announcement when or before we removed the communities, not hours later. After realizing this mistake, we would have liked to write this a lot earlier already, but we were all busy with irl things, that we just didn’t have time for it.

Lemmy.World is run by volunteers on their personal time, nobody here gets paid for what we do.

Removed communities

Next, we want to explain how we got to the decision to remove these communities.

`[!crackwatch@lemmy.dbzer0.com](/c/crackwatch@lemmy.dbzer0.com)`

A lot of the recent content posted to this community included images instructing users to visit a specific website to obtain a copy of the release that the post is about. These instructions were in the form of Type in Google: visit-this.domain. The domain referenced in these posts is entirely focused on video game piracy and providing people with access to copyright infringing material.

While there may be legal differences between whether one is linking to specific content on a domain or just linking to the domain itself, such as linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_piracy compared to linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/, we do not consider this to be clear enough in laws and previous lawsuits that linking to just the domain is acceptable, if that domain is primarily about distributing copyright infringing material. We therefore do not allow linking to such domains. Additionally, we do not see a significant difference between posting a link directly to a website and embedding said link in an image, so we treat them equally.

`[!piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com](/c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com)`

This community is, for the most part, just about discussing various topics related to piracy. We do not at all mind discussion about this topic, and if it had been limited to that, this community would be fine.

This community, however, contains a pinned Megathread post by a community moderator, which, through a few levels of a pastebin-like site, provides an aggregated overview of various sources of content. Some of these sources are entirely legal content, but it intentionally includes various other references, such as the website referred to from the CrackWatch community, which are primarily intended for copyright infringement.

lemmy.dbzer0.com is willing to accept this content on their instance, as well as the potential legal risk coming from this, which they’re free to do.

We do not plan to defederate from lemmy.dbzer0.com, but we will continue to remove communities that are directly facilitating copyright infringement. @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com, the admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com, is a great person, and we have no problems with him as a person. This is just a matter of different risk tolerance.

`[!piracy@lemmy.ml](/c/piracy@lemmy.ml)`

Same as [!piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com](/c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com).

Why have the piracy communities been restored previously? What changed?

Currently, based on the memories of team members involved in the decision back then, it appears that there was a misunderstanding between the community moderators and Lemmy.World admins in how the community will be moderated going forward, as well as which types of content are allowed.

Lemmy.World expected/assumed that links to websites primarily focused on facilitating distribution of pirated content would be disallowed in these communities.

The community moderators however do tolerate references to such websites, as long as people are not linking to individual content directly.

We suspect that this may have been missed during our original review when restoring the communities, which lead us to previously restoring these communities.

Why now?

We have recently received a takedown request for content not directly related to these communities, but it prompted us to review other piracy related content and communities.

Terms of Service clarification

Last, as we’ve reviewed our Terms of Service, we have updated our wording here to make it more clear what is and what isn’t allowed when it comes to piracy. This was already covered by "Do not post illegal content of any type. Do not engage in any activity that may […] facilitate or provide access to illegal transactions" in section 4, but we have now added section 4.1 to better explain this.

We apologize for the delays in communication.

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

lemmy.dbzer0.com is willing to accept this content on their instance, as well as the potential legal risk coming from this, which they’re free to do.

Well, it's more that we believe a domain root url embedded in an image, or a link to a rentry doesn't really have any risks. At least, nothing likely to get us sued. Note that all these domain links existed (and still exist) in the reddit /r/piracy wiki for years without problems.

The reason being that almost all of these takedowns are coming from automated crawlers, who won't bother OCR every image they come across, or b64-decoding every string.

[–] clueless_stoner@feddit.nl 1 points 7 months ago

Must be exhausting having this problem with LW twice now. Can't make this shit up at this point. Lol

[–] Tramort@programming.dev 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm unhappy with this decision and don't support it.

[–] L0wded_@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

same

[–] maniajack@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You aren't on the lemmy.world server so why does it matter to you?

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Well you see, since Lemmy.world is a large instance, the vast majority of the Lemmy network actually. Such decisions ultimately affect everyone else because they slash your engagement severely in all affected communities.

So even on other instances the decisions of a behemoth like lemmy.world can still affect users there, in way more indirect and annoying ways.

[–] Blaze@dormi.zone 1 points 9 months ago

Hopefully unhappy users will change instances and thé population will ne more spread as a result

[–] maniajack@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Ok I can see that secondary impact. This is the reality is unless someone else is willing to run a big instance and accept the legal risk. To everyone complaining: first are you even donating to your instance, and second, willing to give a lot more $$$ to support them if there was a legal problem. I doubt they would.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Overreach and how the Lemmy.world admins became /u/spez

[–] hal_5700X@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Again. Really? 🤦‍♂️

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yup, and this time it seems like they're getting more support from the community than downvotes (or they're upvoting their own post).

[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

This is where the benefit of having more than one account on different instances comes in. When admins make a move users don't like, users can just log into a different instance to access the content they want to see.

Honestly though, not very good optics on doing this without any prior communication. You are going to do whatever you want on your instance, but as IIRC the biggest Lemmy instance, its a really bad look to be making changes without saying anything. It makes me (and likely others) wonder if you hadn't been called out on it by some users posting about it if there would even have been an announcement like this at all. Granted, there is no legal obligation for transparency, but many users here greatly appreciate the transparency in the past that was done prior to taking action for the most part.

Side note: Going to go out on a limb here and assume the content takedown request was Nintendo related, and the takedown request was probably filed by someone who does not actually represent Nintendo. This happens so often that it is basically my default assumption. This may or may not be the case here, but its hard to imagine that there would be anyone else with their eyes on such a tiny community as Lemmy, especially in comparison to Reddit.

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Not cool, reverse this

[–] hollyberries@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We have recently received a takedown request for content not directly related to these communities, but it prompted us to review other piracy related content and communities.

What a pathetic response. I am interpreting this as:

We will fold whenever we get a legal request, real or not.

To users on .world, I strongly recommend scrubbing your posts, deleting your account, and then going to a different instance. These admins have proven that they WILL buckle to legal pressure no matter what - that means also giving up user data upon request. Your data is completely accessible by admins. That includes your private messages and unpublished pictures.

Off the top of my head I can think of a few scenarios:

Being LGBTQIA+ in a country where its illegal to be
Consuming content from websites not approved by the Chinese government while being a Chinese citizen
Disparaging the Chinese government while being a Chinese citizen
Activism discussion (eg. extinction rebellion, antifa, the auntie network)
Right to repair in countries where its illegal to circumvent device DRM to perform repairs

I've deleted my account there because that TOS and so-called privacy policy are complete and utter trash.

[–] Blaze@dormi.zone 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That includes your private messages

Those messages are not private, there is a disclaimer about it every time you write one

[–] AtmaJnana@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Which is why we should refer to them as "DMs" or "direct messages".

[–] sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

When it comes to linking to content, it's essential to understand that simply providing a link does not equate to sharing the actual content. Each URL on the Megathread serves the specific purpose of leading users in a particular direction.

If this practice is deemed negative, then one could argue that every search engine operates erroneously. Search engines display results and guide users to specific destinations, mirroring the functionality of our approach to linking.

[–] nyakojiru@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

People are always welcome to join the ship , the seas are all open for everyone to adventure.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

Might as well ban Lemmy.ml under rules 1, 2, 4, and 5.1 if you're going to start enforcing your rules.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This shit again? Last time I jumped from world the instance I went to shut down. I guess its time to start looking at spinning up my own.

I get it. But I want to see that stuff. So I can't stay where I can't see it.

[–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

Running my own instance really starts to pay off

[–] fatalError@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And this is why lemmy will never get close to what reddit was. On top of the cumbersome registration process and difficulty of navigating the fediverse for the non-tech people, there is also the issue of de-federation and censorship. This is no better then reddit unfortunately. It makes me sad, this really seemed like a good idea, but the implementation is so poor.

People were saying it won't matter what instance you choose, everything is federated and you choose what you want to see, but clearly the instance admins make that choice for you and it absolutely does matter the instance you choose.

[–] clueless_stoner@feddit.nl 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Take lessons from my previous unremoval announcement and undo this. This is really stupid

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I do not believe that this decision has been made in good faith and is against the wishes of the community

[–] istanbullu@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

I regret having donated to you guys, you do not deserve it.

I moved to a new instance, and happier for it. I recommend others doing the same. lemmy.world is run in a way that makes reddit look nice.

[–] 0xb@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't like the decision, like most people here.

But it's unbelievable to see the reaction of many users. Providing a free uncompensated server and bandwidth and monitoring and all the related stuff is apparently not enough. There's is people basically demanding free legal representation, protection, and challenges to many country laws. That's completely insane. The comments criticizing the instance for 'folding' against legal request better have ready 100k USD for retainer of a top copyright legal firm, with even more ready for a lengthy and expensive legal battle. Otherwise it is just nuts to me the responses we are seeing.

Again, of course I don't like it and will consider my options like moving instance, but I understand that I am responsible for the content I seek and the legality of it. I will not feel entitled to offload the burden of that responsibility on someone else demanding that it be carried for free.

To the instance admins I only have to say thank you for the service you provide, thank you for putting in actions the spirit of sharing and community. And please do exercise your right to protect yourself legally.

For us users is seems so simple as just export our stuff and go somewhere else, but for the instance admins there have been so much time and other resources invested that certainly must be sad and frustrating to risk it all, so it's better to follow the way that leads to the continuation of the project, and we should understand that if we want the project to continue, like I do.

I wish there were better options, like better laws or the independent tech for better protection and anonymity, but this is the reality of what we have and we all have to engage with things as they are. We can keep demanding changes to the people really in charge of the system instead of fighting among each other.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The comments criticizing the instance for ‘folding’ against legal request better have ready 100k USD for retainer of a top copyright legal firm, with even more ready for a lengthy and expensive legal battle.

I hope you're not going to take this the wrong way, but I want to be clear - this is not at all what is involved in legal services or remotely the costs involved. Generally speaking, the review of a claim like this is an hour or two at most. You can also preemptively review these concepts with a lawyer, and get a handy-dandy letter or two to be used as a common first tier response (which also handily dismisses the majority of claims, which tend to be bunk). Several hours at least.

Costs for lawyers are typically in the $100-$600/hour range, with very few (top partners at large firms) getting into the $2k-$3k/hour territory. A lawyer with a specialty in intellectual property is going to land smack in the middle of average these days, around $250-$350/hr.

A $100k retainer, or any retainer really, is unnecessary. The actual costs for some basic legal support are about the low range in costs for a month of operation of their servers ($900-$2200/mo per their own public costing statements through opencollective).

Forget anything else in terms of piracy communities or anything else. Speaking with a lawyer to cover the bases is a smart decision - remember that there have already been issues like CSAM that have cropped up. A bit of up-front smarts and a couple of hours with a lawyer pays dividends. The reality is, them making guesses - and immediately backing down to any request - is a problem for anyone using their servers. Its a real concern, don't be dismissive.

[–] 0xb@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I hope you're not going to take this the wrong way

Absolutely not, I also agree, as some others have pointed out, that there have been mishappens with communication, so I'm glad that there's discussion about the issue. Thanks for clarifying with your knowledge and doing so nicely.

this is not at all what is involved in legal services or remotely the costs involved

To be honest, everything I know about that is what I have read about the number of cases when platforms or other kind of purveyors of piracy are sentenced to or settle paying tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands or even millions. Those are real cases where the people involved obviously felt very confident about their legal safety. Surely, most of the situations are not like that and don't even get to be in the news because of how insignificant the resolutions are.

But, is there a way to be sure about what kind of outcome would lemmy.world would get to be completely confident about doing or not doing one thing or another?

Costs for lawyers are typically in the $100-$600/hour range, with very few (top partners at large firms) getting into the $2k-$3k/hour territory. A lawyer with a specialty in intellectual property is going to land smack in the middle of average these days, around $250-$350/hr.

Is that just one time? Is that total to get a safe and definitive resolution? Or is that every time the situation arises? What about companies that exist exclusively to massively send takedown requests? What about copyright trolls? If the instance openly accepts the legal liability, the number of times that this happens will decrease, increase or stay the same?

The reality is, them making guesses - and immediately backing down to any request - is a problem for anyone using their servers. Its a real concern

I guess we go back to the point I tried to make. My position is that the instance admins are not obligated to be a legal shield for the users to have any kind of content that we want on the platform. This is not a privacy-focused nor a free speech-focused service, never has been, data is not encrypted, users have identifiable information, there are commercial services being used to run it, used under another set of TOS and hired with real world legally responsible identities. To say 'Well the legal cost of keeping piracy on the site is not that high I think' seems like an unfair position to me.

I do pirate stuff myself, sometimes because it is more convenient, sometimes because it is moral, sometimes is the only option. But I take the responsibility of doing so myself. If whatever site I use decides to shut down tomorrow, I won't make a fuss about it. Demanding to someone else to face the possibility of legal trouble because it will only take them a few hours and max a couple of thousand dollars and is comfortable to me, is what seems concerning to me.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

To be honest, everything I know about that is what I have read about the number of cases when platforms or other kind of purveyors of piracy are sentenced to or settle paying tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands or even millions. Those are real cases where the people involved obviously felt very confident about their legal safety. Surely, most of the situations are not like that and don’t even get to be in the news because of how insignificant the resolutions are.

I'd say not only are most situations not like that, the ones you are referencing are specifically people who were actively sharing content. There are a couple of decades of history on this stuff.

But, is there a way to be sure about what kind of outcome would lemmy.world would get to be completely confident about doing or not doing one thing or another?

Well this is what a lawyer is for. As well as liability insurance (another often misunderstood thing - every group/business/etc is different, but a general liability policy for a million or two USD costs most folks around $1-$2k per year.) But there is quite a bit of established law, yes. If you link directly to materials that would be infringing, but not host, you can be considered as intentionally encouraging direct infringement - note that this is with a direct link only. This goes back about... 20ish years to MGM and Grokster.

Also established - thumbnails are fair use, indexing or linking to a website (but not to content directly) is an intrinsic use/function of websites. If a direct link is made, the site owners need to remove that link when notified either by report or by a claim from the IP holder. There are even safe harbor provisions specifically around sites like Lemmy (and other link aggregators), which a lawyer can provide the guidelines on how to ensure they apply.

Is that just one time? Is that total to get a safe and definitive resolution? Or is that every time the situation arises?

It depends on what we are talking about. Reviewing a specific claim? One time cost. Getting a good general response to any random bunk claim that comes their way? One-time-ish, it doesn't hurt to check in with the lawyer every once in a while to see if anything needs updating. No lawyer I know is going to charge to read their own letter, but they may say "There are some extra references that can be brought in here from recent case law, I'd estimate 30 minutes of work" which would be an extra cost obviously.

What about companies that exist exclusively to massively send takedown requests?

A great reason to have already spoken with a lawyer and have a prepared response. Also a great reason to speak with folks at the EFF should the need ever arise, they like going after copyright trolls.

If the instance openly accepts the legal liability, the number of times that this happens will decrease, increase or stay the same?

Who said there is legal liability being accepted? What liability legally? Specifically.

My position is that the instance admins are not obligated to be a legal shield for the users to have any kind of content that we want on the platform.

No, but this is the part where I think you're missing something really important. The piracy community (communities) aren't the issue to me. Lets recap what happened here.

There was a claim that came in on something - unrelated to these communities. There was, as far as has been posted, absolutely only a request, with no response other than lemmy.world simply agreeing to what was demanded. This has not had any actual legal review, and may have been a completely valid or invalid request.

They then decided to apply this request (valid or not) as a concept to other areas, and simply disabled access. There were supposedly hours of discussion here, and then the change was made, with absolutely zero discussion. There were never any comments expressing concerns to any of the effected communities or the admins of the instances which manage those communities. There was no posting here until hours after it was brought up on another instance. This is also only a few months after they admitted to doing a terrible job of communicating and promising to do better.

There was an unsubstantiated claim from an unknown entity, and their decision on how to apply that (not just to the claim, but to unrelated communities) was done unilaterally and without any legal input.

Forget piracy. There is a trust problem. Why would you feel comfortable providing them with any information of yours if you live in a country where you may be concerned for your safety - not even now, but in a few years - for having the unmitigated gall to admit you are (gay/trans/bisexual/a believer in a socialist meritocracy/atheist/muslim) on a place where there are no legal precautions actually being taken? Where the word of someone sending a letter matters more than what the law might actually say?

My issue with the decision here has almost nothing to do with piracy or those communities. It has to do with trust. And they lost mine.

[–] 0xb@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why would you feel comfortable providing them with any information of yours if you live in a country where you may be concerned for your safety - not even now, but in a few years - for having the unmitigated gall to admit you are (gay/trans/bisexual/a believer in a socialist meritocracy/atheist/muslim) on a place where there are no legal precautions actually being taken? Where the word of someone sending a letter matters more than what the law might actually say?

As I said, I agree that communication has not been great. I can budge on that, even if it is not even my original point. The admins (and all the fediverse really) could more clearly state that everything on this site is basically public. This is not Signal, this is not Telegram, this is not the dark web and this is not a corporation with a legal department. User should be mindful of that when posting. It is precisely people under immoral laws and governments, or concerned about personal safety the ones that need to be careful about their activities, because if their risk is anything greater than downloading a videogame without paying, some guy in another country reaching out to a lawyer for an hour is not likely to provide them relief. I don't like that, but is the reality. The site should improve on making the users aware of that reality.

About my original point, it seems that we agree that the site is not under any obligation to provide legal shield, whatever legal options exist or not, are costly or not. It would be great if they provided them. I think setting up an operation like this at own cost for free is a show of values and the quality of a person, and I think that would show if the stakes were higher, like the examples you provide. It would also be great that people with expertise in legal affairs, like you seem to be, volunteered to carry on that job, like the admins carry the technical job voluntary. But not them nor you or anybody should be forced to do so. Exclusively the users up in arms almost demanding piracy free-for-all content, are showing unjust entitlement and misunderstanding about how the fediverse works.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The admins (and all the fediverse really) could more clearly state that everything on this site is basically public.

To an extent - lets not forget that a bunch of identifying information is visible to admins, not to users, not publicly. Which is why a privacy policy (such as the one on lemmy.world) is so important, and why it would seem so frustrating when basic legal practices are functionally ignored. What's the difference between a random troll sending cease and desists out, and a certain corrupt POS Texas AG requesting all the folks who have ever commented that they were trans? Both can be completely and utterly unfounded, and yet still bring you into a lengthy court battle.

because if their risk is anything greater than downloading a videogame without paying, some guy in another country reaching out to a lawyer for an hour is not likely to provide them relief. I don’t like that, but is the reality. The site should improve on making the users aware of that reality.

I have to disagree there, because competency comes into play. Speaking to a lawyer and being aware of how to say "No" properly is important. Knowing how to document bad requests and bad faith actors. Having someone you can reach out to and follow-up with for an unsubstantiated nonsense request from a hate monger is important.

Rolling over immediately and preemptively making decisions on unrelated communities however... that doesn't provide me with warm and fuzzies.

It would also be great that people with expertise in legal affairs, like you seem to be, volunteered to carry on that job, like the admins carry the technical job voluntary. But not them nor you or anybody should be forced to do so. Exclusively the users up in arms almost demanding piracy free-for-all content, are showing unjust entitlement and misunderstanding about how the fediverse works.

To be clear here - I am not a lawyer. I have run forums before (and I can guarantee the issues around piracy and illegal materials that are bound to be posted have not changed), I worked with lawyers, I carried general liability insurance, etc. These aren't specialty things, this is what basic operations looks like.

Exclusively the users up in arms almost demanding piracy free-for-all content, are showing unjust entitlement and misunderstanding about how the fediverse works.

I don't think I've seen any of that personally. I'm one of the people who called out an admin for not actually talking to a lawyer though - and frankly I think they should have done that months and months ago. Even just to have found someone available who could provide services as needed.

[–] MrKaplan@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

as I'm very tired right now, I only want to comment on one of the arguments/questions you brought up.

you're asking for the difference between taking down content and providing information about users.

its very simple actually. sharing non-public data is a very different story than removing access to otherwise public information, whether it's originally coming from Lemmy.World or elsewhere.

when we take down content, even if it's more than legally strictly necessary, the harm of such a takedown is at most someone no longer being able to consume other content or interact with a community. there is no irreversible harm done to anyone. if we decided to reinstate the community, then everyone would still be able to do the same thing they were able to do in the beginning. the only thing people may be missing out on would be some time and convenience.

if we were asked to provide information, such as your example of a Texas AG, this would neither be reversible nor have low impact on people's lives. in my opinion, these two cases., despite both having a legal context, couldn't be much further from each other.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You'll have to excuse me here, but I am currently having a hard time believing anyone from the lemmy.world team at the moment.

What I'm referring to, and was not replied to, was the difference between two requests made on a legal basis. What I did not refer to was content access.

What the .world admin team has shown me is that they don't understand the legal aspects, made assumptions about them rather than actually seeking counsel, did not actually communicate in a way that has been repeatedly promised by the team, and didn't even bother to reach out to alert other directly related admins.

I'm a "show, don't tell" sort of person. And what has been shown is that I do not wish to be on lemmy.world any longer, in part because I'm really going to have a hard time trusting any of you after this.

Not due to the decision necessarily, but the approach and actions. I hope you can understand why that would be the case.

[–] MrKaplan@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

maybe I misunderstood your comment, I read your Texas AG example as asking for information about users. did you mean Texas AG asking for the removal of comments where people are stating they're trans?

[–] Canyon201@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why isn't this pinned to the site? I had to go searching for the reason

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Trying to avoid people seeing it because they'll get more backlash and probably lose donators and rightfully so. These types of knee-jerk reactions combined with the refusal to address feedback are very concerning.

[–] LinearArray@programming.dev 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Shame that you folks couldn't even allow educational discourse on Piracy.

[–] jelloeater85@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Meta conversation is allowed. We added that exception.

[–] despotic_machine@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The decisions you make are one thing. The way you keep handling them so incredibly poorly is quite another.

[–] jelloeater85@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

We try to be as transparent as possible. There was a lag between action and announcement, it happens sometimes.

[–] Aurix@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is on the mod team of the mentioned communities. On no commercial site this crap would fly. On reddit fitgirls site is never mentioned in full for good reason. Crosslinking to pastebin blobs is just formaiity. These communities should be kept clear of any linking.

[–] LonelyNematocyst@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

On reddit fitgirls site is never mentioned in full for good reason.

That's just false. There's a direct link in the r/piracy megathread.

[–] Koof_on_the_Roof@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Thank you for your hard work. I feel that a delay of a few hours is acceptable for a voluntary service. I am sure there are many commercial services which have much worse communication.

I personally feel that being able to discuss piracy but banning communities that have links that actively promote piracy seems like a sensible safe legal position. This is probably what I would do if there was even a possibility I might be legally liable for an instance.

I can understand users frustration but I don’t think it’s fair to take it out on the admins. It is a thankless task which people do to benefit their community. The great thing with the fediverse is that you have other low cost options to turn to if an instance no longer works for you.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So to make it clear: people are allowed to make new piracy centric communities with the express rule to not post direct links to primarily providing copyright infringing material?

I‘m not a lawyer but I read legal texts at times.

This would most likely save .world from the repercussions (btw its how reddit mostly handles it afaik) and maybe some posts could be crossposted on a per case basis.

I‘m trying to be constructive here so please be gentle.

Disclaimer: it is fairly easy to host a lemmy instance, please consider helping thw fediverse by hosting if youre a tech savvy person. Otherwise, join a stable instance at https://fediseer.com

[–] brickfrog@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

So to make it clear: people are allowed to make new piracy centric communities with the express rule to not post direct links to primarily providing copyright infringing material?

Nope, it's more than that. Lemmy.world admins don't want you to link to any websites that link to anything that might contain direct links or references to direct links. Strangely that means that linking to Google or Reddit would fail that test so links to those sites should be removed by lemmy.world admins too.

Per admin's own post they removed !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

This community, however, contains a pinned Megathread post by a community moderator, which, through a few levels of a pastebin-like site, provides an aggregated overview of various sources of content. Some of these sources are entirely legal content, but it intentionally includes various other references, such as the website referred to from the CrackWatch community, which are primarily intended for copyright infringement.

The megathread post that admins are referring to contains links to a different website that contains links - that website is not on Lemmy at all. Lemmy.world admins took this removal action because the community contains a link to another site that may contain links lemmy.world admins don't like.