this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
236 points (63.9% liked)

Lemmy.World Announcements

29161 readers
45 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
 

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 281 points 2 weeks ago (28 children)

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 2 weeks ago (46 children)

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 93 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 38 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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 (1 replies)
load more comments (44 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 163 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

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 (9 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 154 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

Jury nullification should not be a banned topic. It's perfectly legal and is the only direct way citizens can object to interpretations of the law. The very fact that the courts and government don't want people to know of it is a testament to its effectiveness in cases where the public will opposes the government in matters of law. Particularly when public opinion differs drastically from a strict interpretation of the law, but most especially when citizens find a law, its often limited proponents, or its execution to be objectionable, unconscionable, cruel, or unwilling to take circumstances into consideration. It's crucial for us to all understand our limited power over the government, especially when it's acting in an oppressive manner, violating human rights, ignoring the principle of justice in favor of a literal interpretation, or is otherwise objectionable by the majority of citizens as opposed to the minority of lawmakers.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 121 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

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 39 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

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 (16 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 116 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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)
[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 109 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

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 (5 replies)
[–] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 97 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

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 95 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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 88 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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 (1 replies)
[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 86 points 2 weeks ago (75 children)

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)
[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 85 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)
  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)
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 77 points 2 weeks ago (23 children)

Really? Jury nullification???

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

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 74 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Translation: move instances

Its a good idea to give them competitors anyways.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 71 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Hmm, maybe a change of scenery is needed. .this place is getting stupid. I haven't seen a single comment actually advocating for violence, mostly just people who aren't sad that this happened. Your mods have also demonstrated a lack of impartial judgemental in the past, and it's starting to show.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 104 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I haven't seen a single comment actually advocating for violence

Probably because they've been removed by the mods.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 47 points 2 weeks ago

I doubt that's true, but if it is, you can see plenty of them in the Lemmy.world modlog over the past few days. It is a public modlog.

[–] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 41 points 2 weeks ago

I haven’t seen a single comment actually advocating for violence

It's almost as if the mods are doing their jobs...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 68 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

I think diversifying mods is a good idea.

The one who "misinterpreted" the rules is a mod of pretty much all the main subs on world.

There's a handful of accounts like that. And they hold way too much sway on the instance as a whole. It's what got reddit in trouble. Mods would add each other as mods in other subs, and it ended up with a whole bunch of super mods with way more influence then they should have had. Especially since that mainly happens when mods agree on things.

Make a limit, even 10 which feels huge would be better than nothing.

Otherwise a handful of people can chase away the entire userbase. Because when a big news story breaks, they control almost all the serious discussions. Which is what happened here. And it'll happen again if things dont change.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 65 points 2 weeks ago (18 children)

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)
[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 63 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 61 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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 2 weeks ago (5 children)

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)
[–] babybus@sh.itjust.works 59 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

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

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] RubicTopaz@lemmy.world 55 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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)
[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 54 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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)
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 45 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

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)
[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 42 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

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 2 weeks 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 (7 replies)
[–] solomon42069@lemmy.world 42 points 2 weeks ago (25 children)

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

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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)
[–] kosanovskiy@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Lol we left reddit for this? Now this is quite an unexpected nullification of jury duties of internet mods. I reject your reality and inject my own ya buncha bozos.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Squorlple@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›