this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
233 points (63.6% liked)

Lemmy.World Announcements

29148 readers
2 users here now

This Community is intended for posts about the Lemmy.world server by the admins.

Follow us for server news 🐘

Outages πŸ”₯

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 πŸ’—

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.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 70 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 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.

[–] MrKaplan@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

many communities would be happy to have more mods. many of these cases come from the lack of people volunteering to moderate a community. this is already being considered when people are promoted as moderators in communities by our admin or community team if a community doesn't have active moderators. we already try to find people that aren't already moderating as many communities in those cases.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

Yea this became a huge part of why reddit got so shitty. There needs to be a cap implemented on how many subs a mod can manage.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 67 points 1 week 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?

[–] RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Admins, please answer this.

In the United States, the right to trial by jury is absolute. Once of the consequences of that right is that juries can choose to follow the law, or not, a they see fit to ethically administer justice. "Should a jury nullify if..." regarding hypothetical future crimes is a completely legitimate topic of conversation, to explore the ethical issues of nullification.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 64 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 63 points 1 week 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 42 points 1 week 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 60 points 1 week 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 56 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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)
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week 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)
[–] solomon42069@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago (11 children)

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

[–] Blaze@feddit.org 26 points 1 week ago (14 children)

If you want a US based-instance

If you want a non US instance

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 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 40 points 1 week 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)
[–] Squorlple@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Shadywack@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Goodbye, LW, parts of this have been nice but this is where I draw the line. The administration has been clear as mud on this subject with very subjective justification for the nullification of reasonable discourse. I'm going to keep my account for a brief amount of time but I fully intend to delete it in the next week. This is the last thing I'm commenting, upvoting, etc. All of my engagement ceases now beyond this comment.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week 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 37 points 1 week 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)
[–] Zonetrooper@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

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 (8 replies)
[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 34 points 1 week ago (16 children)

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 (16 replies)
[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week 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

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago
[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (6 children)

So is the manifesto allowed to be posted on .world?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] merthyr1831@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 week ago

Reddit ahh Lemmy instance

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

In the TOS, I would appreciate it if you would make it clear to users signing up for Lemmy.world which legal jurisdiction the site at large falls under and that the content here must abide by because this is not made clear on the sign up page or in the TOS (it should be front and center, not several scrolls down the page, at the bottom, because it is the basis for everything else in the TOS). At the time of this comment this information also isn't listed on any sidebar, or about page for the site itself or the Lemmy.world community/sign up pages so far as I have been able to tell.

The TOS is a legal document and as such, changes should also probably be dated to reflect to existing users what has changed or been updated since their initial sign up and the fact that it is less likely for them to review the TOS at a later date unless you notify them (by email or similar) or they run afoul of the document. This adds important context both for the users and for the legal jurisdiction.

This is also important for moderators who may or may not live or otherwise be subject to the laws of the legal jurisdiction of the site, because naturally moderators will default to and be swayed by what is legal (or illegal) in the jurisdiction where they operate, and will more than likely also not be well acquainted with the laws and regulations outside of where they operate.

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (12 children)

How do I change instances? I think I'm on this one and I want off.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί