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.

You’re reading correctly.

I mean, people paid for it on Facebook and the likes are arguably even worse at their job so…

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.

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’m seriously worried about most commenters here’s reading comprehension. This whole post is saying “you know all the stuff mods deleted recently? We had a talk and 99% of that is now allowed” and people are still acting like this turned into some insanely policed pro-capitalism instance.

Are all these people really that upset at not being able to use this specific instance to convince people to kill more CEOs? I mean, if someone is already that fed up with the system I don’t think a random Lemmy comment is what will push them over the edge.

What do you want an answer for, “why is Lemmy better than Reddit”?

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.

Meanwhile on Reddit

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.

And it’s not a banned topic, in fact.

Talking about the concept of jury nullification, about the times where it was applied, and how it could be applied to current cases are all allowed, according to what they wrote.

The only thing that’s not allowed is using it as a motive to incentivize future crimes (violent ones specifically, as other types of crimes would obviously not fall under “advocation of violence”). Aka “they should kill (guy), whoever does it will probably not even go to jail because of jury nullification”.

I can understand (though not agree) with banning clear advocation for violence of CEOs, but the “I haven’t had a reason to smile this much in a while” message that got the user banned was too far.

Was that from a mod or an admin? From what I understood, the ToS explained here would allow a comment like that, but mods could still decide to remove it according to community rules.

From what I understood, nothing is specifically related to him, it’s more about the discussion that comes from that.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I grasped the tl;dr is “CEO dead? Great!” = ok / “CEO dead? Great, they should kill more of them!” = not ok