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.
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.
Mods could still remove it though, not for instance ToS but community rules.
They could remove it by flip of a coin
True... then it could be appealed to admins I suppose. Someone could make an entire community dedicated to coin flipping, where that is the sole means of deciding whether posts get to stay or not. So long as no instance rules are violated, it's all good.
Actually that would be funny, with like, a webcam of a little coin flipper bot.
Anyway I was highlighting a core feature of the fediverse...mods and especially admins are beholden to noone. All standards are a courtesy
Oh absolutely (and it wasn't me who downvoted you btw, in fact I'm upvoting both here bc relevance). I would argue that there's a social contract, regardless of money, to the people who contribute to making an instance what it truly is - e.g. spez did not "own" all of Reddit content. Though at the end of the day, don't the admins have far more involvement in the matter than a mere lurker, and a mod perhaps the most of all, since they donate their blood sweat and tears into the thing that they build (or at least help build, as in curate) daily?
So if people don't like an instance then move, and same with communities. I blocked [email protected] months ago and subscribed to [email protected] instead. The world is what we make it.
Not being combative but I actually believe there's zero social contact... It's an illusion of privilege. The fact that we even get to quibble about mod / admin behavior is at their whim. Now, sure, the ultimate conclusion could be that everyone leaves and they're a mod of no one, but there's a whole lot of sausage to be made between here and "server is empty"
[email protected]
Oh yeah I'm a reader for sure. It's interesting but ultimately it's like "oh I hope they don't just ban everyone"
You would not say that if you knew more about the maker of that community:-). I mean yeah sure they could, but they won't.
Though just to highlight the cool aspect of federation, if I were wrong and that did happen, there is also [email protected] and [email protected].
One instance, one community, cannot ever be counted on, but the Fediverse relies on the fact that we can always go elsewhere - that CANNOT be stopped:-).
Though it would require effort to make happen - freedom does not imply lack of responsibility to have to expend work in order to attain any kind of results at all.
Again, I'm just chatting with you,.. not upset, but my core point hinges on a statement you said:
"I mean yeah sure they could, but they won't". That's at their whim. At their choice. It could seem steadfast and sure now, but they could change their mind tomorrow.
Indeed the fediverse provides an out: set up shop elsewhere.
Edit I also meant the mods that are being tattled on...they could just nuke everyone who comments on the trippin comments
Absolutely. There literally is no other way, besides authoritarianism. The owner of that community though is an anarchist. So while nobody can predict the future with 100% accuracy, I was relating my belief that it seems unlikely. (i.e. since "won't" is impossible to ever be said with complete certainty, I was rather meaning it as a likelihood estimate - if that helps clear up any confusion)
Well stated, e.g. Reddit is both "dead" (to so many of us) and also "not" at the same time. But the contract I meant is more related to per-person - the admins & mods get to act however they like, and so too do we. It's a contract that was written prior to humans existing, as in actions and reactions. If they go too far in whatever manner as to piss off their users, then they lose them. Whether piecemeal or in large chucks or wholesale or whatever.
They can then remain kings and queens π of their sad little hill if they like. On the other hand, if a mod pisses off an admin too badly, they are removed, and if an instance pisses off the law too much, the whole thing gets shut down. Mods therefore have to do that balancing act between their community members and the admins, just as admins do at the next higher level up of the law. A fact which hasn't seemed to feature all that prominently in most discussions of this topic that I've seen yet so far.
So it sounds like the laws prohibit advocating blue collar crime, but advocating white collar crime is fine.
That's not what blue collar/white collar crime is
Does this discussion really require ableist slurs?
Like, people are arguing about jury nullification when slurs are just flying around from .world users... What's judicial process matter at that point?