this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
235 points (63.8% liked)

Lemmy.World Announcements

29153 readers
4 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 info@lemmy.world 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 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zonetrooper@lemmy.world 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)
[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 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)
[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 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

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] merthyr1831@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 week ago

Reddit ahh Lemmy instance

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

In the TOS, I would appreciate it if you would make it clear to users signing up for Lemmy.world which legal jurisdiction the site at large falls under and that the content here must abide by because this is not made clear on the sign up page or in the TOS (it should be front and center, not several scrolls down the page, at the bottom, because it is the basis for everything else in the TOS). At the time of this comment this information also isn't listed on any sidebar, or about page for the site itself or the Lemmy.world community/sign up pages so far as I have been able to tell.

The TOS is a legal document and as such, changes should also probably be dated to reflect to existing users what has changed or been updated since their initial sign up and the fact that it is less likely for them to review the TOS at a later date unless you notify them (by email or similar) or they run afoul of the document. This adds important context both for the users and for the legal jurisdiction.

This is also important for moderators who may or may not live or otherwise be subject to the laws of the legal jurisdiction of the site, because naturally moderators will default to and be swayed by what is legal (or illegal) in the jurisdiction where they operate, and will more than likely also not be well acquainted with the laws and regulations outside of where they operate.

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (12 children)

How do I change instances? I think I'm on this one and I want off.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Doesn’t the very concept of jury nullification only apply to cases where a crime has already been committed and then a jury is called upon to reach a verdict on said crime? This honestly reads as mental gymnastics. Or perhaps it could be worded better. Do you mean to say that jury nullification will be fine going forward, no matter what the crime, but you still must forbid calls to violence against named or otherwise identifiable individuals or specific groups or people and/or the glorification of violence in general? This would be better wording I think, though still hard to distinguish and enforce consistently. I find the concept of β€œjury nullification for future crimes” hard to grasp.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Sounds like what they mean is that they don't want the topic of jury nullification to factor into a decision to commit a crime. If the crime is already committed, the topic can not affect that decision since it was already made. Before a crime, they take the discussion to be an incentive to commit a crime. Essentially, "don't be too worried about being prosecuted, the jury can just find you effectively innocent." It can come off as encouraging crime.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] sumguyonline@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

There is genuinely only 1 thing that matters. People are desperate for change, while Democrats are viciously protecting the status quo, and Republicans are actively making it worse, and enriching themselves. Healthcare, inflation, over charging for milk, literally everything down to the fact they can't even time stop lights well enough to curb traffic jams so cars break down faster and you pay more to fix it. I do not envy your position being forced to exist by their laws. The day is coming when sides will be required to be chosen. Probably by them. How many ip's have you already turned over? Keep this in mind. They are the ones that get eaten, no matter how powerful they may posture to be now. They are weak without the people they are enslaving, and the people they need to maintain control are starting to starve.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I know people want to celebrate the perish of a bad guy (me included) but if that endangers existance of lemmy.world then I think it's fair to take this celebration somewhere else.

On the ehtics pov I'm not quite conviced that celebrating death is entirely unethical. Some people are bad and society is better without them and these Dutch, Finnish and German laws might make sense locally but definitely don't make much sense in a global context.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (14 children)

A very weak response, and several days late. Not impressed.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago

Common lemmy.world L

[–] Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Why not have lemmy.usa where americans can freely discuss the american solution to every american problem aka guns?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

So i can talk about a case of jury nullification that happened last year, but not talk aboit how that should happen every time. Unless the crime was non violent then im ok to say "that should happen all the time".

[–] The4th@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Does anyone know of a "(US) free speech instance"?

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί