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.
You must log in or # to comment.
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.
The ToS don’t specify anything about jury nullification, they just said it explicitly in this thread because apparently they removed comments about it in the past even if it was about crimes that already happened, and they wanted to make it clear where the (new) line exactly is.
Reddit was the free speech instance all along? Honestly, with the mods clarifying this I’m asking myself - why the fuck am I on Lemmy again?
using volunteers for moderation is the root of the problem on both Lemmy and reddit.
I mean, people paid for it on Facebook and the likes are arguably even worse at their job so…
The other dude is confusing. Did you find an answer
What do you want an answer for, “why is Lemmy better than Reddit”?
No they want to know the instance for the greatest free speech, without someone saying “discord bans hexbear links”, repeatedly as if anyone asked about what discord does.
First, that’s not what you asked.
Second, there’s not a single mention to Discord in their comments.
Third, they literally listed instances under the US law, which I suppose is what you’re asking for.
They probably confused discuss.online the Lemmy instance, and Discord
Reddit
Definitely not
If you want to change instances, 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
Bear in mind that instances being hosted in the US do not automatically mean they’ll implement full free speech. Discuss.online for instance, uses the Code of Conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
You’re comparing Reddit removing links to his Manifesto, with Lemmy.world removing comments and posts seen as glorifying the righteous actions he allegedly took, or thinking through the morality of it?
Reddit WASN’T doing that. Lemmy.world WAS.
Likewise given the mod post we’re commenting on, it’s likely Lemmy.world would ALSO remove links to his manifesto.
So yes, there is scope to say there’s more free speech on Reddit on this issue.
It is unclear which instances you’re recommending for better levels of free speech.
What post have you been reading? There is nothing forbidding you from talking positively about what happened or dunking on Thompson.
This is one of the top posts on .world for the past month and the comments are full of people memeing about it or saying he deserved it.
Haha, your post that’s “been up for a month” has been up for a week dude. Don’t just lie to me so overtly. Anyone can click your lemmy link and see it says 1w.
Also, you’re comparing the OP which is for ALL OF Lemmy.world, to the post you linkedbon Reddit, which is for a single Popculture related subreddit? r/Popculture is just one sub my guy. You’re not being serious here. You’re being defensive and making argumentative mistakes.
There is nothing forbidding you from talking positively about what happened or dunking on Thompson.
‘glorifying violence’, and hence against the ToS:
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.
As they say earlier, they’re not in the US they’re in Western Europea and so trying to pussy foot on free speech.
The problem is they’re being mealy mouthed cowards still in writing this long verbose post. So it’s obscuratan managereal talk still.
Just say either: “we are going based on least harm so are allowing for the idea/posts that say killing CEOs doing mass-harm is allowed as long as it’s not written with specific instructions on how to do that”, or “we are against any positive talk of violence to beings/creatures” (which is what they say in part above).
You know if you’re going to run a platform you should just go read the speech codes of the laws where it is located, then interpret them broadly in proportion to the profits or net value of the site (which is generally how courts approach such things, eg. “you are a small site, with not many users we accept you may have trouble with moderation”). Especially if you’re a user/volunteer run, and distributed site/app, that’s not profit driven. General that means there’s no just and proportional reason or target organization for fines.
The problem with Lemmy is that they aren’t aiming for anything Reddit hasn’t already. If you’re going to take this “we’re Federated and distributed” approach, you have to consider these things, and even have some plans on changing server locations as soon as you receive a legal threat.
You want to be something different to Reddit via being Federated? Learn to duck and weave systems of controlbas per your structure. Don’t just become a blander version of Reddit. That’s sad… and for goodness sakes, don’t beat around the bush like this. Make stark definitions so we all know what ball game we’re playing and why.
Haha, your post that’s “been up for a month” has been up for a week dude. Don’t just lie to me, it’s silly.
…are you able to read? “one of the top posts on .world for the past month” means that, among what has been posted in the past month, that post is one of the most upvoted. I never referred to how long it’s been up, I’m just saying that being an extremely popular post, it’s impossible for admins to not have seen it. And yet it’s still up, with comments full of insults for the CEO. Which means those comments are perfectly okay.
Also, you’re comparing the OP which is for ALL OF Lemmy.world, to the post you linkedbon Reddit, which is for a single Popculture related subreddit? r/Popculture is just one sub my guy.
The r/popculture mods are acting after being specifically notified by Reddit Admins about it. Which means they explicitly told them they’re not okay with those things.
Do I have to highlight what YOU quoted?
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.
It literally says that it’s allowed.
and for goodness sakes, don’t beat around the bush like this. Make stark definitions so we all know what ball game we’re playing and why.
There is a stark definition. Don’t talk about killing people that are currently alive. That’s it.
I would probably drop it
it’s likely Lemmy.world would ALSO remove links to his manifesto.
No
If it’s confirmed, I don’t see why not. Depends on the community, of course. I’m sure !lemmybewholesome would remove it.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13922763
If you want other news communities, there is !usa@midwest.social. There is also the recent !askUSA@discuss.online, with a specific thread about jury nullification here: https://lemmy.world/post/22973877
Lemmy is not as monolithic as Reddit. If you don’t like !news@lemmy.world, just change communities.
This seems like a double standard: Should any defense of the US healthcare system also be banned because it barbarically leads patients to die waiting for care in an intentional way?
What would the double standard be? Defending the US healthcare system is deranged behavior but doesn’t qualify as “advocating for violence” under any standard.
And besides, you can hardly defend it without blatant misinformation, and that’s banned anyway so it doesn’t really make a difference.
As a non US citizen defending the US healthcare system certainly seems at least a little insane.
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.
Wow what a crock of shit
Why does shit always come in crocks? Why can’t it come in a jeroboam?
What a jeroboam of shit!
Does anyone know of a “(US) free speech instance”?
“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.” Ok that is utter bullshit regardless of country, and I’m no American saying that. You though, whoever wrote that, have completely revealed yourself as an utter statist monkey begging to be dominated
Your bloodline is weak.
This shit is exhausting and incoherent to read. Also, jury nullification is in no way, shape or form ‘advocating for violence’.
So does this mean that lemmy.ml is taking over as the biggest instance?
TIL
This seems reasonable on the whole.
Everything was fine until the “Jury nullification” thing? Apparently that’s an American thing where a state can disregard a federal law if they find it to be unconstitutional.
What does that have to do with Lemmy moderation?
I’m sorry if this is very obvious, but I’m not American, and just learned the meaning of the term from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)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.
Keeping licking the boot. Jury nullification is one of the only weapons the American people have to fight unjust judgments. Y’all bending the knee to the fed just like reddit lmao
we are not a (US) free speech instance.
The “free speech” you always hear people hollering about has nothing to do with this. “Free speech” in the US refers to the government not being allowed to arrest you for what you say, not a social media site removing comments.
