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.

  • Blaze (he/him)@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    we are not a (US) free speech instance

    Thank you for reminding this. Some people always think that Lemmy.world is US-based or managed, while this is clearly not the case.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      People also seem to somehow believe that free speech in the US means that private instances can’t deplatform you for the things you say.

      I have no idea why anyone thinks that extends to anyone besides the government censoring speech or why they think free speech means freedom from the consequences of that speech.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Exactly right.

        Free speech means that the government can’t prosecute you for what you say (except in certain specific circumstances).

        Free speech doesn’t mean that I can’t kick you out of my house for what you say.

        What we need is a government-operated fediverse instance to serve as a public forum.

        • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          What we need is a government-operated fediverse instance to serve as a public forum.

          That sounds like something Bernie or AOC would advocate for. It would honestly be pretty lit for a bit, before being taken over by lobby industry bots.

      • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Many Americans have a weak grasp on even the most basic details of their constitution. During my stay there, I heard “free speech” improperly being used as a defense by people of many different backgrounds.

        • whatwhatwhatwhat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          This drives me crazy. I’ve commented this before, but I’ll say it again:

          People in the US love to cry first amendment (freedom of speech, etc) any time something they say has consequences.

          • Sexually harass a coworker? Freedom of speech!
          • Business owner says something bigoted and people stop patronizing their business? Freedom of speech!
          • Get banned from a Facebook group for being an ass? Freedom of speech!
          • Kicked out of a shop for your offensive shirt? Freedom of speech!

          Funny how the same people with wE tHe PeOpLe bumper stickers are the ones who haven’t actually bothered to read their own bill of rights. These people also seem to think that “free speech” (as they define it) should only apply to speech they agree with.

          • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Those are the idiots, the real users of the first amendment are the assholes who allowed corporations to have free speech.

            This is what led to to the Citizens United decision that has pumped billions into our election cycle (which now never ends). It has created a media that is dependent on those billions in ad revenue, YouTube included. And along with the Super PAC rules, allows unlimited bribing of our “elected” officials.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Free speech is a principle (like free trade) in addition to a fundamental right enumerated in the 1A enforceable against the government. People are making policy arguments when they discuss it in the context of private entities deplatforming advocating for private implementation of the principle into business practices.

      • OpenStars@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Usually bc they are trying to see if they can get away with that argument. And sometimes it works so they continue to try.

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s still unethical to bar speech that you don’t agree with on a public platform when that speech is realavent to the topic in the post/group unless that content is illegal or calling for violence, etc. I almost banned someone from my sub based on what they said in another and realized that it would be an abuse of power and that person was entitled to their opinion outside of the sub that I moderate.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s still unethical to bar speech that you don’t agree with

          Sure, but not if that speech is incitement to violence. Then it’s a legal responsibility to shut it down.

          • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            No, there’s no legal responsibility to shut down violent speech in any country, including the Netherlands. If there was, then speaking in support of capitalism would be illegal. If there’s a law on the books that says it prohibits violent speech, it’s not enforced consistently.

            • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Try Germany:

              §111 (1) StGB:

              Anyone who publicly, in a meeting or by disseminating content (Section 11 (3)) incites an unlawful act shall be punished as an instigator (Section 26).

              §130 StGB:

              (1) Anyone who, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace,

              1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against parts of the population or against an individual because of his membership of a designated group or part of the population, or incites violence or arbitrary measures, or
              2. attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously denigrating or defaming a designated group, parts of the population or an individual because of their membership of a designated group or part of the population, shall be liable to a custodial sentence of three months to five years.

              (2) A custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty shall be imposed on anyone who

              1. disseminates or makes available to the public content (Section 11 (3)) or offers, provides or makes available to a person under the age of eighteen content (Section 11 (3)) that a) incites hatred against a group referred to in paragraph 1 number 1, against sections of the population or against an individual because of his or her membership of a group referred to in paragraph 1 number 1 or of a section of the population, b) incites violence or arbitrary measures against persons or groups of persons referred to in letter a), or c) violates the human dignity of persons or groups of persons referred to in letter a) by insulting, maliciously denigrating or defaming them, or
              2. produces, obtains, supplies, keeps in stock, offers, advertises or undertakes to import or export content referred to in number 1 letters a to c (§ 11 paragraph 3) in order to use it in the sense of number 1 or to enable another person to make such use of it.

              I’m fairly certain CEOs could fall under the “designated group” label but I’m not a lawyer. If that is the case, lemmy.world can be held accountable for the spread of content promoting their death.

              • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                CEOs aren’t a designated group, they’re a voluntary group. And 111 only prohibits advocating unlawful violence. It’s perfectly legal in Germany to say that criminals should be locked up. Imprisonment is a violent act, and it’s completely legal to advocate it. And criminals, just like CEOs, are not a designated group.

                • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  According to the 2nd highest court in Germany that can only be overruled by the constitutional court:

                  A section of the population - the only one to be considered in the present case - is a group of persons who are distinguishable from the rest of the population on the basis of common external or internal characteristics of a political, national, ethnic, racial, religious, ideological, social, economic, professional or other nature, who are numerically of some significance and thus no longer individually distinguishable.

                  BGH 3 StR 602/14, decision from 2015-04-14

                  As a layman, CEOs seem to fit that definition due to their economic and professional characteristic.

                  This Wikipedia article has an extensive number of court cases and resulting applocations and limitations listed, in case you’re interested in learning more. The English version is far less detailed, so try translating the whole site, i.e. through Firefox Translate:

                  https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

                • Muehe@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  CEOs aren’t a designated group, they’re a voluntary group.

                  Oh don’t pretend you know what you are talking about. The German text says “vorbezeichneten Gruppe”, for which an alternative translation is “aforementioned group”. So the designated groups are “national, racial, religious or ethnic group[s]”. So yeah, CEOs aren’t a designated group, but not for the reason you pulled out of your ass.

            • wewbull@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Sure Dragonfucker.

              Netherlands Criminal Code

              Part V. Serious Offences against Public Order

              Section 131

              1. Any person who in public, either verbally or in writing or through images, incites another or others to commit any criminal offence or act of violence against the authorities, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine of the fourth category.

              Thank you for your detailed legal analysis.

        • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          While you and I may give a shit about ethics you can’t expect everyone to hold themselves to the same standards unless you want your heart broken every day for the rest of your life.

      • A huge number of Americans are dumbfucks. I deal with that every day.

        911 = life or limb emergency.

        I can assure you that 98% of Americans can’t even grasp that simple concept.

        • Mac@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Misinformation.

          Many places here in the states don’t operate a separate, non-emergency line and calling 911 is appropriate even when it isn’t an emergency.

          You should let them know that it’s an non-emergency upon calling.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          911 = life or limb emergency.

          But have you considered that my neighbors are being pretty loud, and I would really like some police to go knock on their door and tell them to be quiet?

      • darthelmet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Legally you’re right. But I think it sort of ignores the spirit of what that free speech should be and the reality it actually exists in. There are corporations that have reached a level of size and power comparable to governments. Plus the government in general is an arm of the capitalist class it represents. Most of the speech that happens today is on these privately owned services. To allow those large corporations to act as censors, it makes the protections on speech from government interference largely moot. Generalizing more, the way I put it is in America, you have freedom… if you can afford it. Sure, nobody is able to stop you from saying what you want to say. But you get to say it to a handful of people you know while a rich person gets to say it to millions of people through media channels and advertising. Sure everyone gets one vote, but if you’re rich you can influence a lot more than one vote (and you can probably buy more than one vote of influence with whoever wins.) You may have the right to an abortion, but if you’re poor you might not have the means to actually do it. People have the legal right to due process, but despite that, tons of cases end in plea deals or settlements because people don’t have the means to be adequately represented in a legal case. When the US legally abolished (most) slavery, many of the freed slaves ended up as share croppers, not much better off or free than they were before because they didn’t have the material means to exercise that freedom. Later, the US passed anti-discrimination laws. No more barring black people from living in some towns/neighborhoods. But despite that, the area I grew up in was still heavily segregated. Legal freedoms don’t mean much if you don’t have the economic freedom to exercise them.

        Now, there’s clearly a line. It seems obvious that say, if you had some private chat room it would be fine to kick people out of it for whatever reason. And at the extreme end we have these massive platforms acting which perform the role of a public service but in the hands of private interests. There I think there should be limits on what censorship they should be able to do. So where do you make the cutoff along that spectrum? Idk. I feel like a Lemmy instance is probably closer to a private chatroom than a social media corporation. They’re small, they’re not run for profit, and they’re not engaged in any anti-competitive behavior. There’s not that much stopping someone from moving to another instance or even making their own.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think the issue is, there IS NO major Lemmy instance that IS us based. So Americans just sort of clump where the other Americans are. Then, that sets the tone for where we are. Everybody has a us centric experience, and so it becomes well known that Lemmy.World is a us based instance…even if it’s not true.

      So now all of it’s users are behaving in a manner which lines up with their own local culture, in this case America, and have no clue which other nations laws apply, or what those laws even are.

      You could tell me that Germany has a law that every 300th meal has to be sausage and schnitzel. I would be doubtful that you’re telling the truth, but I’d have no leg to stand on to dispute.

      So you say “Go to the american instance then!!!” And to that I say “It doesn’t exist. Or if it does exist it’s too small to notice.”

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Why would you assume “.world” would mean the USA…? It’s obviously NOT USA, so why assume USA instead of the other 99.99% countries? Thats why you read the shit dude.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          That’s not what I’m assuming. The assumption isn’t that it’s the USA or any country at all. The assumption most people make is that they and their actions are covered under the laws of their locality.

          • Docus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            The assumption most people make is that they and their actions are covered under the laws of their locality.

            Yes, which means that the site owners have to deal with the laws of their locality, and may be held accountable under their laws for allowing the content on their instance.

            Maybe unlikely to happen, but given the potential consequences, I can’t blame a small group of volunteers not wanting to take the risk.

            More importantly: nobody has a right to assume LW is a democracy. Their instance, their rules.

            • atrielienz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Again. I’m going to stipulate that I do understand that the site owners have to deal with the fallout of that, in the event that they are private citizens and not business entities.

              Section 230 in the US gives certain immunity in regards to content that is posted for social media platforms.

              Provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances. <<

              Meaning you can’t be held civilly liable for the actions of your users if you run a social media platform as a business. It specifically doesn’t consider social media to be a publisher and therefore not subject to the same legal restrictions as a publisher would be.

              But, if the business is not US based, even if the majority of its users are American, it may or may not be decided that such an entity is subject to it (or that even if that business is subject to the laws of its locality, the US can and often has considered that immunity to hold which was not the intention (it was not intended to be used for global immunity)).

              So if we flip that around, and take into consideration the natural assumptions of most users who may or may not be from the locality in question, they 1. Do not give any thought whatsoever to the owner of the social media platforms they use, and 2. Assume that any such legal action taken as a result of their personal statements or actions will only be considered in their own locality. This is human nature. I’m not defending it.

              This thread and the original post are about adding clarity for users, moderators and admins of this instance. If clarity is the goal, users should be made aware of the locality under which the platform legally falls. Since we also know the average user is unlikely to have read the complete TOS, we know that having that information there at the very bottom and nowhere else means most users will not ever come across it.

              Now, can we stop assuming this is just Americans messing it up for the rest, and leave the mentality behind and focus on the assumptions of anyone who might sign up here (from any country) that is not the locality of where the website is hosted or where it’s owners reside?

              Nobody is asking anyone to take any risks here. I’m literally saying that the problem is that people make natural assumptions that most people are prone to, and as a result, a better way to inform them could potentially be implemented. I’m not even arguing that the owners don’t get to make the rules. I’m not sure where you got that from. That’s why I asked (not demanded).

              If a mod (from say South American or Zimbabwe) was operating under the laws in their country and banned someone for content that they felt was against the law, but it was not against the law in the locality of the site or the offender, would that mod be in the right? There’s at least one comment I’ve seen on this post from a mod who felt a comment not in a community they moderate was breaking the rules and they admit their initial reaction was to ban the person before they realized that they are not the entity that should be undertaking that duty.

              If clarity is important, maybe this should be considered.

              • Docus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                You make some valid points. My take is that it is up to the users to comply with their local laws (EU citizens have been convicted in court for social media posts that broke local laws but not necessarily the site rules), and the TOS are not there to address that. It’s up to the instance owners to comply with the laws applicable to them, and for that they need to guide and educate the moderators, not the users (some of whom are going to ignore the rules anyway). So perhaps mods need detailed rules on what is and is not allowed on the site, but sharing that level of detail with the users is just sparking pointless discussions.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          That’s at pretty much the very bottom of the TOS and given the number of people who skim or don’t even read TOS and EULA’s (and the number of jurisdictions that have rules they aren’t a binding agreement), I’d say something directly on the sign up page is warranted. Additionally this information is not anywhere that I can find on any sidebar or about section.

          People don’t often “look” for instances specific to their locale when joining Lemmy. That’s a lot of the reason this instance is so large. I would wager that most people who are users of this instance do not know that this instance is based in Scandinavia (and Germany). I bet most of them are also unfamiliar with the laws and regulations of those countries as well.

          • Blaze (he/him)@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            something directly on the sign up page is warranted.

            The sign up page literally asks people to write "I agree to the TOS” in the form, with a link to the ToS

            People don’t often “look” for instances specific to their locale when joining Lemmy.

            Not so sure, lemmy.ca, feddit.org, sopuli.xyz, aussie.zone and midwest.social are in the top 20 of most active instances. If you go top 30, you find feddit.nl, feddit.uk and jlai.lu

            https://fedidb.org/software/lemmy

            • atrielienz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Don’t skip the bit about how many people often do not read the TOS or EULA. That’s important to what I am saying. I was literally told when asking about Lemmy instances that lemmy.world was THE recommendation for instances specifically because it was so large and active as a result. Just because there are other instances where the users are local to the locale of the instance doesn’t necessarily undermine my point since what we’re talking about is lemmy.world specifically.

              And anything with a .uk or similar is more likely to be identified at first glance as being for that locale which means more of the users would naturally gravitate towards it. Like it or not lemmy.world is a jumping off point for lots of users, plenty of whom move on to other instances (some of which may be an instance more local to them).

              • Blaze (he/him)@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Don’t skip the bit about how many people often do not read the TOS or EULA. That’s important to what I am saying.

                The vast majority of the people on LW probably do not care. We see a lot of people announcing they are changing instances in this thread, but I would be surprised to see more than a few dozens actually do it, inertia is a thing, and a good portion of the people seem to think the changes are reasonable.

                I was literally told when asking about Lemmy instances that lemmy.world was THE recommendation for instances specifically because it was so large and active as a result.

                You created your account in 2023, when LW was a few weeks old, as well as most of the other instances. There was no way for people to know that this kind of issues would arise, at the time the ToS probably didn’t even exist.

                Recommendations nowadays usually suggest Lemm.ee or discuss.online, as LW has become too large, and every decision they make have an impact on Lemmy as a whole, such as this one.

                Like it or not lemmy.world is a jumping off point for lots of users, plenty of whom move on to other instances (some of which may be an instance more local to them).

                But if they move to another instance, then the LW rules don’t apply to them anymore, so no need to change the sign up page?

                • atrielienz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  But if they move to another instance, then the LW rules don’t apply to them anymore, so no need to change the sign up page?<<

                  You said it yourself. Inertia is a thing. Some people move on. Some people don’t and probably won’t.

                  Clarity is important if we’re talking about enforcing a TOS to comply with the law. Especially when the average Lemmy instance owner doesn’t just have a team of lawyers on retainer.

                  The point I’m making though is a lot of people (perhaps myself included) wouldn’t have come to lemmy.world at all if they had known that they’d be beholden to laws they had never even heard of and aren’t normally subject to in their daily lives.

                  I don’t think what I’m suggesting (I’m not pushing to enact the stuff I suggested) is all that unreasonable. But of course it’s not up to me, and probably not even up to the majority of Lemmy.world users.

                  But the .world part of the name is something of a misnomer if you consider how confusing it may be to new users, especially if this is their first foray into the fediverse.

                  I haven’t decided it’s worth the time to vet another instance to move to and transfer everything I have set up over to that new instance.

                  Though this wasn’t handled the way I would have personally handled it, I’m largely not too bothered about the changes because I’m unlikely to ever run afoul of them.

                  Even though I absolutely believe that karma is a thing, and you get out of the world what you put into it, at the end of the day I’m not on Lemmy (or any other platforms) to advocate for the death of people. Probably the closest I have ever gotten is saying something like “eat the rich” and that’s meant to be taken as having a healthy dose of sarcasm.

    • 3ntranced@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m confused, what does free speech have to do with where the instance is based? This is the internet, what country is going to extradite a US citizen for making a comment on a defederated social platform?

      The overreach is insane.

  • Makhno@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    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

  • samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

  • Jamablaya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    “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

  • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Too late, I’m already out the door. You assume no one understands the nuances of hosting in a country without free speech laws as liberal as the US.

    The truth is most people do. Your moderators’ histrionic response was so obviously from a place of emotion, and can recall numerous times your mods have allowed speech that was similar but didn’t act because they weren’t personally offended.

    I think you fail to understand that your audience is international. That you let your moderators power trip not from an abundance of caution but because it’s more convenient for you.

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      You assume no one understands the nuances of hosting in a country without free speech laws as liberal as the US.

      Or they may just don’t care. I’ve seen countless of people who not just justify the murder, but also think it should be an inspiration for what should be happen. How people can’t wait to see rich people get murdered. How this should be the new norm and how to fix the system. Which I find extra funny when the same country just elected a person of the same making as the guy who got shot (and now people try to claim that everyone’s on board with justifying the murder, including maggats).

      • OpenStars@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Don’t underestimate the amount of disinformation propaganda pushing even in such a small platform as here, potentially by people radicalized elsewhere but have now decided to bring it here. Not everyone is a bot (nobody here that I know of even, I’m just bringing up the infamous phrase), yet not everyone may be fully cognizant of the reasons behind their own beliefs either.

      • Sonicdemon86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Over half of America didn’t vote as they see that both democrats and republicans take money from the rich and use it to make the middle class disappear. If it was easier to vote and we got rid of first past the pole, more people would vote. But alas both sides want first past the post as it keeps them in power. So only small minority that did vote did this, and most of America didn’t want either side. But what you gonna do when both sides don’t want you to live. Yes one side is extremely worse, but it is hard to see that when prices go up and your family might die due to higher ups not caring about the help.

        • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          No, I’m sorry, but this is straight up Russian disinformation and non voters are even dumber than those voting for Trump, since they automatically enable the bad actors, which is how you end up with despots like Putin btw who pushes for this exact kind of “both sides are the same” & “you can’t trust either side / truth” type bullshit. Voting starts not at the presidential level, but at the local one. You can vote everyone in & out, and if there’s truly no candidate to your liking (even though you should AT THE VERY LEAST vote for the lesser evil in any case) go into politics yourself. In a democracy, the voters are the ones who are responsible for making changes. But of course, if you elect people like Trump (not just Trump himself), then yes, you end up with a broken system that gets more and more dismantled - until it is gone and you truly don’t need to bother voting anymore. And that’s the point where you’re at now, thanks to people’s wrong vote, or lack of a vote. Both cases are responsible for this, dooming not just the US, but the rest of the world, thanks to Trumps (anti) climate policies.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Nice of you to not give a shit about the potential for other people to get into legal trouble so you can get angry on the internet. Enjoy your new instance.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          How would I know? And why do you think other people should risk it on your behalf even if it hasn’t happened yet? You have to follow the laws of the country your server is in or you put yourself at risk. That’s just how the world works.

          Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else who isn’t actually paying for and maintaining the .world server should be telling them that they should risk themselves for us. That is really not our call.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Again, it is not your call or my call or anyone else’s call about who should put themselves at legal risk, especially when Lemmy is just people fucking around on the internet. “It hasn’t happened before” is not going to convince someone who is already not willing to take that risk to go ahead and take it. For one thing, there’s always a first time when it comes to a law.

              • intresteph@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                You’re never going to stop us from celebrating the death of a murderer. And by doing so, you side with the insurance companies. You sound like a pig in plain clothes.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Good thing I’m not trying to stop you from doing that. And even if I was, there are how many hundreds or even thousands of other places on the internet where you could do that? So why are you so concerned about one specific Fediverse server?

      • Blaze (he/him)@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        As a side-note, based on the amount of hate speech some instances still allow, it seems like there isn’t really any threat to this kind of discourse online on a platform that small.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          You mean .world? I don’t think it’s your call or my call or anyone else’s call when it comes to whether or not other people should risk legal trouble for the benefit of internet bitching.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Some of the mods have always been on top of removing posts promoting / glorifying violence against others. Other mods have not. This is a hodgepodge mix of unpaid volunteers, helping on a platform that has very very rudimentary administrative/ moderation tools with very poor systems of notifications and reporting.

      If you think the are opportunities for things to run smoother, I would recommend helping out or evangelizing for more people to help out if you’re too busy.

      Simply being mad at the admins doesn’t help - especially when they’re trying navigate nuance and a janky platform with good intent.

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think you fail to understand that your audience is international.

      I think you fail to understand that being international means that your American-centric views take a backseat for once in your life.

        • OpenStars@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          If the last criteria is defederation from hexbear.net, then there is strong hope for Discuss.Online. Though I don’t know if they would want to host a political community that would involve such controversial topics. They probably would be welcoming to like an AskUSA one.

          • Canonical_Warlock@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m on dbzer0 which is federated with hexbear and I honestly haven’t noticed anything bad from there. I always heard horor stories about it before I signed up here but it has actually been remarkably tame. I mean, they’re obviously leftist but I’ve seen far far worse tankie shit from just lemmy.ml.

            • OpenStars@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              They can be fun to talk with. They can also be extremely harassing, though tbf more for people who don’t know what !ChapoTrapHouse@hexbear.net is all about - i.e. who have not read its sidebar text. And yet, many apps (like Voyager, and the basic mobile browser web UI) do not show that? Like porn, it’s mainly only bad if you stumble upon it unawares - e.g. while at work - and would have to opt-out of it. Which, if Lemmy was that way, then many people would have to simply cease checking Lemmy while at work on those devices.

              Many of the users on lemmy.ml who are seen harassing people the most outside of the actual Hexbear communities are self-admittedly alts of Hexbear accounts. Consent means nothing to them, apparently, so when hexbear.net was defederated from Lemmy.World a year ago, they simply shifted over to an account that wasn’t blocked. Like an incel who will never cease telling you what a “nice man” he is, they simply WILL NOT stop.

              Which is all the more sad considering how many legitimately nice conversations go on daily inside of the many other Hexbear communities. But those conversations aren’t why Lemmy.World and so many other instances chose to defederate from them. In the post whose link I sent earlier are a bunch of other links where each instance makes its own determination and offers links to exact posts and comments that they felt justified their decision to defederate, if you want to read through some examples. Tbf many have since been deleted by their creators, though that should tell you something right there, about the transparency and integrity of Hexbear users who when blamed don’t always retort with the truth so much as do whatever they hope will work so as to be able to dunk on people (and thus when caught, lie, even the instance admins, to other instance admins even!?!?!? which I also put a link to that event as well in that post).

              TLDR: I get it, it is not literally every single comment, user, and/or community that does it, but it is there, if you spend more time looking. There are exact links there if you want help finding them.

            • OpenStars@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Woah.

              Ofc it won’t stop alts from leaking through - nothing can stop that - but in fighting against spam, every little bit helps.

              img

              Will you now be using it as your primary instance recommendation on Reddit? There is perhaps literally nothing better for that, so this is fantastic news that may help even the non-USA parts of the Fediverse by allowing the bringing in of more users who will feel safer to talk than they would have before, due to harassment for having a USA centrist (which let’s be real translates into a global and especially from the EU perspective, right-leaning) viewpoint. Comics, memes, hardware, woodworking or more techie Maker stuff and so many other hobbies, I hope to see more discussions about them all, with this helping people on Reddit to now be less resistant to joining.

              🎉🥳💐🎇

        • xapr [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Look through this list and sort by monthly active users (MAU): https://fedidb.org/software/lemmy

          The server location info doesn’t seem 100% accurate, but it should still help. I would suggest either the instance I use, lemmy.sdf.org (run by an American, technology-oriented non-profit org), or perhaps lemmy.zip, which also looks good - I started looking into it but haven’t fully vetted it yet.

          By the way, I don’t think that being in a larger instance has much benefit, by the way. In fact, I tried one of the larger ones and found that it suffered performance-wise, so I went back. You can get pretty much everything from every other Lemmy instance, especially one that doesn’t block and is not blocked by other instances (lemmy.sdf.org also applies here).

          • Blaze (he/him)@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            https://legal.lemmy.zip/docs/terms_of_service/

            The website and the agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom and the European Union.

            https://discuss.online/ is US based and just defederated hexbear

            By the way, I don’t think that being in a larger instance has much benefit, by the way.

            Content accessibility can be an issue due to the way instances only fetch remote communities if a local user is subscribed. Also, having a larger userbase usually means that the instance has been around long enough to show some good track record for the instance

            • xapr [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Thanks, I edited the post and noted that lemmy.zip was UK-based after I originally posted.

              https://discuss.online/ is US based and just defederated hexbear

              That’s a negative for me. I don’t want anyone blocking instances on my behalf unless those instances are doing blatantly illegal stuff.

              Content accessibility can be an issue due to the way instances only fetch remote communities if a local user is subscribed. Also, having a larger userbase usually means that the instance has been around long enough to show some good track record for the instance

              Yeah, that’s true. I did use some of the great Lemmy community directory sites to find some communities that weren’t already subscribed from my instance. I understand that better community discoverability is planned for upcoming Lemmy versions.

              • Blaze (he/him)@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                That’s a negative for me. I don’t want anyone blocking instances on my behalf unless those instances are doing blatantly illegal stuff.

                In that case, there’s https://lemmy.today/ . Their blocklist is empty, and they’re from Oregon.

                We prefer to recommend https://discuss.online/ for new joiners, so that they don’t have to stumble upon hexbear from their very first minutes on the platform. For more advanced users, it’s a different story.

                • xapr [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I still prefer lemmy.sdf.org. They also have an empty blocklist (from what I can tell - the version of Lemmy they’re on I don’t think splits it off into a separate tab), they’re also from Oregon from what I recall, have 2.5x more monthly active users than lemmy.today, and they’re a non-profit that’s larger than and longer than only their Lemmy instance.

                  Again, I don’t get the hexbear issue. I wish someone could explain to me what the problem actually is.

      • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Being happy that a man responsible for the deaths of thousands is an “American Centric View” now.

        And don’t call yourself “world” if you cannot reasonably accommodate a wide rage of views. Call yourself “Dutch” and make your limitations clear.

        You world sycophants want the benefits of being the authoritative instance without the responsibility.

      • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s an American story, effecting 100’s of millions of Americans directly. So no, not this this time. See a therapist to work out all this reflexive anti Americaism

      • hono4kami@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        The USDefaultism is already strong back in reddit, but sadly it seems to be worse on Lemmy. Tired of seeing folks from US acting like they’re the main characters, kinda puts me off using this platform

  • Allonzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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, but murders of “We’ll if I murder these thousands of people, 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.

  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    This shit is exhausting and incoherent to read. Also, jury nullification is in no way, shape or form ‘advocating for violence’.

  • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I’m gonna have to switch instances because of all the terrible shit the US does, free speech is the one thing we truly get right.

    And I just want to let you know what free speech is when it comes to violence:

    • yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is none: not protected

    • celebrating the death of a CEO who deserved it: protected (the deserved it is irrelevant to speech, but fuck that guy)

    • saying you wish other unnamed CEOs will be killed next: protected unless there’s evidence of planning and ability to carry out murdering a specific CEO

    • saying you wish a specific famous person be killed, such as Elon musk: grey area, depends on if there’s evidence of planning and ability to carry out. Public figures are a higher bar to reach than the lay people.

    • saying you wish to kill your neighbor John who’s not famous: not protected regardless of planning or ability, it’s assault

    • saying you want to kill any person and having evidence of planning and a method to do so: not protected

    • saying you wish for a whole group to die: protected if there’s no evidence of planning and ability to carry it out. One could theoretically march around with signs that say death to fags and that’s totally legal. Example: Westboro Baptist Church picketing funerals with signs such as that.

  • RandomVideos@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    To the people saying they are switching instances:

    Shouldnt you have switched a long time ago or just never joined the biggest instance?

    Is there any negative to not having or any positive to having a big instance like lemmy.world?