528
submitted 3 months ago by lwadmin@lemmy.world to c/lemmyworld@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Blaze@feddit.org 288 points 3 months 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 200 points 3 months 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.

[-] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 98 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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 36 points 3 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 42 points 3 months 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.

load more comments (38 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)
[-] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 171 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think this is a good time to remind everyone that the strength of federated social media (and a big reason why we're all here) is that no private company or country's laws can have total control over the fediverse.

Everyone who runs an instance is going to have a different risk-tolerance for legal issues however, and I can't fault anyone for making a judgment call that they feel best protects the server and their users. I don't know anything about Dutch or Finnish laws, but I've seen many recent articles about people arrested in Germany for their social media posts that were considered hateful or violent (which is frankly a culture shock to me as an American), so I can see why some of the posts on Lemmy in the past week would be concerning.

In my interactions with the .World admins, I've seen nothing but people trying to run an instance in the most fair and neutral way they can, and I personally trust them to make the hard calls when they come up. That being said, if you're frustrated with the legal concerns of a host's country or have had a run-in with a mod that upset you, it only strengthens the fediverse if you spread out or create similar communities elsewhere.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 130 points 3 months ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 120 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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.

?? So, discussing jury nullification by itself, or suggesting ‘crimes that have not yet happened’ - itself is not a violation (i.e. someone should disturb the peace) but suggesting that “someone should disturb the peace and everyone on the jury, should they be prosecuted, should advocate for jury nullification” is a violation of the ToS?

I’m not understanding that part.

[-] chillhelm@lemmy.world 42 points 3 months ago

Specifically where it relates to violent crime.

Essentially it is supposed to make statements like the following a rule violation:

"If someone murdered [fictional person] they would totally get acquitted because any jury would just nullify the charges."

While the following sentence would not be a violation of TOS:

"The murderer of UHC CEO Brian Thompson should get acquitted via Jury Nullification because [reasons] and this is super dope."

The first example could be read as a call to violence, while the 2nd is not calling for a crime.

As I understand it "All future jurors in money laundring cases should nullify, because tax evasion is... like... super cool" would also be legal, because money laundring is not a violent crime.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 113 points 3 months ago

Anyone who wants The Adjuster to be imprisoned is supporting violence against him. Imprisonment is a violent act. Drag thinks the Lemmy.world admins should make sure to remove any comments advocating imprisonment.

load more comments (75 replies)
[-] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 111 points 3 months ago

Woah, I get not allowing advocating for violence, but restricting people from discussing the topic of jury nullification is pretty messed up regardless of how you feel about the killing.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 104 points 3 months ago

People in the US have justifiable revulsion to its rapacious healthcare system leading to outright un-aliving of a large segment of the population. One might argue that it's a silent genocide of the underprivileged. This incident has highlighted that sentiment in a way that may effect real change and in a way his untimely demise may lead to positive health outcomes. Suppressing the expression of that anger could have the opposite outcome.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 99 points 3 months ago

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.

We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence

I see jury nullification as similar to self defense, just at a larger scale. I take this message as "You're not allowed to talk about defending yourself for future occasions, only ones that have already happened."
I guess talking about owning a gun for self defense can be seen as "advocating for violence" but that's a narrow minded view, where nullification is only used when the ethics are on the greater good, like thousands of deaths vs the one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Baron1avAB0rn@lemmy.world 93 points 3 months ago

Broseph, I can't have sympathy. The income inequality won't let me. People aren't cheering the unaliving necessarily, but the fact that one of these people actually answered for their crimes, in whatever form that took. Because courts weren't gonna make him.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 92 points 3 months ago

Really? Jury nullification???

Glad I didn't join your instance because that is fucking insane.

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] Stamets@lemmy.world 84 points 3 months ago
  1. If Jury Nullification is legal and allowed, then frankly covering that exact thing up is an abomination and y'all should be utterly ashamed of yourselves. Since when is Lemmy in the habit of backing an establishment while not allowing people involved to know the full picture? Genuinely shameful and disgusting behavior.

  2. Yeah, I'm not going to ever remove anything from my communities relating to that or to the violence against the CEO. There is no difference between Brian Thompson and any other mass murderer on the planet. Are you asking me to protect Hitler or Pol Pot as well from criticisim and glee over their death? No? Then I am sure as fuck not going to do it for this guy.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 83 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Translation: move instances

Its a good idea to give them competitors anyways.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] babybus@sh.itjust.works 78 points 3 months ago

7 paragraphs of water. Did you want to convey your point or just to write something?

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 69 points 3 months ago

Personally my big takeaway from the comments here is that either many people think administrating a large internet platform is a joke and happens on its own and you don't find 10+ legal notices in the PO box every week, or that - and I've read about this before - reading comprehension in the english-speaking world has fallen dramatically in recent years and people are genuinely unable to read paragraphs of text of non-trivial content and/or shifting subjects within same sentences, something you learn around 6th grade in school but sadly rarely need after school in modern times.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] freeman@sh.itjust.works 65 points 3 months ago

Is your opinion that advocating for jury nullification would constitute some violation of Dutch, Finnish or German law based on legal advice?

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 64 points 3 months ago

My takeaway? It seems like the admins tried making it a banned topic, but the pushback was so great that they eventually said "Ok, ok, murder is bad. Going forward, no murder.....but just this once."

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 40 points 3 months ago

That's kind of what happened in Politics when Kissinger died... "No celebrating death... but it IS Kissinger..."

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] RubicTopaz@lemmy.world 63 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Lame. Jury nullification is good and necessary in this case. Saving people's lives shouldn't get you punished, regardless of your motives.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 60 points 3 months ago

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 (12 replies)
[-] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 58 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

At what point is supporting the prosecution of this assassin advocating for violence? The social murder done by the CEO is so many orders of magnitude greater, and the state will do violence to the killer to defend the industry's right to do social violence.

Nobody was having this conversation when people rightly cheered the deposing of Assad. Guess what? That involved violence, a lot of it. That was state-backed violence too though, so I guess we're all just fine with it.

The state calls its own violence "law" and that of the people "crime".

I guess lemmy.world is happy to just go along with whatever the state wants. It's just insulting that you pretend it's about "violence" and you expect people to believe you.

[-] solomon42069@lemmy.world 54 points 3 months ago

Wow I wasn't even planning to leave but this nonsense just convinced me. Thanks!

load more comments (22 replies)
[-] Allonzee@lemmy.world 49 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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 even if felt in ignorance, but murders of "Well if I murder these thousands of people on this newly discovered loophole, 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.

[-] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 38 points 3 months ago

There's also the point that he was continuing to kill thousands of people, on an ongoing basis.

Vigilante justice for someone who killed in the past, bad.

Someone taking down a killer mid-rampage? Hero.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 46 points 2 months ago

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?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 46 points 3 months ago

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] merthyr1831@lemmy.ml 39 points 3 months ago

Reddit ahh Lemmy instance

[-] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago

I have read it all, and i genuinely still don't know how or what is applied to the dead CEO.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Squorlple@lemmy.world 38 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 36 points 3 months 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.

[-] Chozo@fedia.io 42 points 3 months 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.

load more comments (32 replies)
load more comments (52 replies)
[-] Zonetrooper@lemmy.world 36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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 (5 replies)
[-] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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.

Edit: also jury nullification is not violence. You’re going with the assumption that the assassin is guilty of a crime. Is it really a crime to murder a mass social murderer? Clearly us Americans aren’t too bent out of shape that this CEO is now resting in piss.

Edit 2: would it be murder to kill Hitler after he started gassing Jews? Is it not because Hitler had an ideology that Jews were subhuman and to be exterminated? What’s different about this CEO? Sure he didn’t target specific groups like Hitler did. But his ideology is money above all, and he didn’t care how many lives he took to make that money. Why is this any different? This is the industrialization of death. This is a genocide against undesirables. Hitler killed disabled people (and LGBTQ) first before moving onto the Jews. Most of America is just numbers on a spreadsheet and when we become too expensive and cut into profits too much we become socially murdered. It’s not a crime when the rich do it to us (for profit!!!!) but it’s a crime when we fight back? You Europeans are clueless!

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months 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

[-] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 31 points 3 months ago

Common lemmy.world L

[-] deltapi@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago

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

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
528 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy.World Announcements

29793 readers
6 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

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

Ko-Fi (Donate)

Bunq (Donate)

Open Collective backers and sponsors

Patreon

Join the team

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS