Lemmy.World ToS and the murder of the UHC CEO
Lemmy.World ToS and the murder of the UHC CEO
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.
"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." Ok that is utter bullshit regardless of country, and I'm no American saying that. You though, whoever wrote that, have completely revealed yourself as an utter statist monkey begging to be dominated
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Who made a death threat here?
Your bloodline is weak.
Lame. Jury nullification is good and necessary in this case. Saving people's lives shouldn't get you punished, regardless of your motives.
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.
Common lemmy.world L
Delay deny depose :3
It's like he wants to be next
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.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.
Really? Jury nullification???
Glad I didn't join your instance because that is fucking insane.
Honestly its sort of fair and just basic ass-covering. If some dummy out there gets the bright idea that they can kill someone because they'll get a jury nullification anyway, and it turns out they discussed that here, it's not great legally. No one wants to end up like 8chan.
That is such a terrible defense of banning speech about perfectly legal actions.
Is telling criminals they are allowed to hire shady criminal defense lawyers also banned? It makes them more comfortable committing crimes, right?
Read what you wrote in a few hours and see if it still holds up in your own mind. Simple talking about a legal action should always be allowed
Why do some people have such an insatiable urge to lick on boots?
No one is saying we should allow child porn and allow mass murderers to celebrate their kills. Trying to compare this to 8chan is disingenuous at best.
Elderly grandmothers are celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson. Think about that for a moment.
What's fucking insane is the way people were practically making a checklist of people to kill
This place was turning into thedonald, where abuse was upvoted
You know it's bad when even 4chan people were acting normal in comparison
This shit is exhausting and incoherent to read. Also, jury nullification is in no way, shape or form ‘advocating for violence’.
Is your opinion that advocating for jury nullification would constitute some violation of Dutch, Finnish or German law based on legal advice?
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.
No, they said jury nullification for future violent crimes, not violent crimes that have already happened.
i.e "Hey guys, do you think a jury would let me off for killing Scrooge McDuck?" or "I think juries should nullify if someone decides to drop a piano on Scrooge's head" and such.
I wanted to address the LW admins. I can see how it may seems I am asking for everyone's opinion.
I did not exclude future crimes from my question.
Advocating to commit a crime probably is a violation of dutch law. Jury nullification does not exist. Edit: no expert, but the other jurisdictions linked to this instance probably similar.
You are not answering the question.
You are taking for granted that that advocating for jury nullification is advocating for the actual crime to be committed. But you are not a legal expert.
Is advocating for lower sentences for some crimes illegal? Would calling for legalization of drug use constitute a crime?
That jury nullification does not exist in Dutch law is not in favor of it being interpreted as advocacy t commit a crime.
K bye.
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.
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.
Free speech is a principle (like free trade) in addition to a fundamental right enumerated in the 1A enforceable against the government. People are making policy arguments when they discuss it in the context of private entities deplatforming advocating for private implementation of the principle into business practices.
It's still unethical to bar speech that you don't agree with on a public platform when that speech is realavent to the topic in the post/group unless that content is illegal or calling for violence, etc. I almost banned someone from my sub based on what they said in another and realized that it would be an abuse of power and that person was entitled to their opinion outside of the sub that I moderate.
Usually bc they are trying to see if they can get away with that argument. And sometimes it works so they continue to try.
Legally you're right. But I think it sort of ignores the spirit of what that free speech should be and the reality it actually exists in. There are corporations that have reached a level of size and power comparable to governments. Plus the government in general is an arm of the capitalist class it represents. Most of the speech that happens today is on these privately owned services. To allow those large corporations to act as censors, it makes the protections on speech from government interference largely moot. Generalizing more, the way I put it is in America, you have freedom... if you can afford it. Sure, nobody is able to stop you from saying what you want to say. But you get to say it to a handful of people you know while a rich person gets to say it to millions of people through media channels and advertising. Sure everyone gets one vote, but if you're rich you can influence a lot more than one vote (and you can probably buy more than one vote of influence with whoever wins.) You may have the right to an abortion, but if you're poor you might not have the means to actually do it. People have the legal right to due process, but despite that, tons of cases end in plea deals or settlements because people don't have the means to be adequately represented in a legal case. When the US legally abolished (most) slavery, many of the freed slaves ended up as share croppers, not much better off or free than they were before because they didn't have the material means to exercise that freedom. Later, the US passed anti-discrimination laws. No more barring black people from living in some towns/neighborhoods. But despite that, the area I grew up in was still heavily segregated. Legal freedoms don't mean much if you don't have the economic freedom to exercise them.
Now, there's clearly a line. It seems obvious that say, if you had some private chat room it would be fine to kick people out of it for whatever reason. And at the extreme end we have these massive platforms acting which perform the role of a public service but in the hands of private interests. There I think there should be limits on what censorship they should be able to do. So where do you make the cutoff along that spectrum? Idk. I feel like a Lemmy instance is probably closer to a private chatroom than a social media corporation. They're small, they're not run for profit, and they're not engaged in any anti-competitive behavior. There's not that much stopping someone from moving to another instance or even making their own.
I think the issue is, there IS NO major Lemmy instance that IS us based. So Americans just sort of clump where the other Americans are. Then, that sets the tone for where we are. Everybody has a us centric experience, and so it becomes well known that Lemmy.World is a us based instance.....even if it's not true.
So now all of it's users are behaving in a manner which lines up with their own local culture, in this case America, and have no clue which other nations laws apply, or what those laws even are.
You could tell me that Germany has a law that every 300th meal has to be sausage and schnitzel. I would be doubtful that you're telling the truth, but I'd have no leg to stand on to dispute.
So you say "Go to the american instance then!!!" And to that I say "It doesn't exist. Or if it does exist it's too small to notice."
I'm confused, what does free speech have to do with where the instance is based? This is the internet, what country is going to extradite a US citizen for making a comment on a defederated social platform?
The overreach is insane.
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.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13870047
If you are a US citizen and would prefer a US-based instance, there is
- https://discuss.online/ which blocks hexbear and lemmygrad
- https://lemmy.today/ which does not block any instance
I would argue that it's certainly not clear. That's probably part of the problem.
Why would you assume “.world” would mean the USA…? It’s obviously NOT USA, so why assume USA instead of the other 99.99% countries? Thats why you read the shit dude. This whole idea that the USA is “the world” is only in Americans head and it’s hilarious to see from the outside in this frequency.
There’s even a term for it since it’s so common “Americentrism”
How is this not clear?
From https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
Our Governing Laws
The website and the agreement will be governed by and construed per the laws of the following countries and/or states:
The Netherlands
Republic of Finland
Federal Republic of GermanyIf people are looking for US-based instances, there is https://discuss.online/
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.
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.
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.
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)
Might want to get used to the idea come 2025...
Midwest.social is located in the US and is also a leftist instance. However, we don’t host many large comms ourselves.
Yeah, if you run an instance, and you decide this is a hobby for you not your main job and you're also not a lawyer and hence you just go "Sorry, all denied" then honestly, more power to you. It's a hobby, not a job. If anybody disagrees, they have just volunteered to be the named person of legal representation for this instance, tbh.
Germany is honestly still a fascist country. People argue that they aren't but they absolutely are, they just try and cope and say they aren't fascist semantically by banning Nazi symbols.
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.
You’re not wrong it being a genocide of undesirables.
Okay, but to be clear: the admins panicked against the very real possibility of police shutting them down, and took a moment to make certain that Lemmy.World can continue to exist to serve this or any needs of people across the world. The bans have already expired, the mod who did it apologized and said that no new ones would be forthcoming, the ToS have been clarified, etc. Yes there was "suppression", but for like 1-3 days, and it's already over?
Unless you mean that people should be free to advocate for future murders, and I would argue that there are other (e.g. anarchy) instances for that, but Lemmy.World is free to do as they please, and to restrict such on their own hardware.
I am saying that "suppression" seems too harsh a word here imho, when the ToS now clearly delineates the line between what is or is not allowed on the LW instance and thereby communities located on it. Isn't that a success then, to define the parameters within which the instance is allowed to discuss these matters (again, by police, a very real external factor that definitely truly does exist - and can come down HARD on those who would want to FAAFO), so kinda the opposite of "suppression" then? Well, according to some manner of using the term at any rate - not everything is allowed, but definitely not nothing along these lines is either.
Like, surely you've seen the veritable FLOOD of posts and comments in just about every community imaginable across the entire Fediverse lately, alternately either promoting this guy as a hero or decrying him as a terrorist? That's not "suppression" in my book - again, the jury nullification matter was, days ago, but that's already over? The nuances here are important, b/c we cannot have true freedom without being responsible to keep this place alive & kicking & not shut down.
This is not TikTok, btw.
One might argue that it’s a silent genocide of the underprivileged.
Please don't give centrists another reason to root for CEO's.
Fucking burnnnnn
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.
I would not be too surprised to find that there were... "sources" promoting the recent uptick in violent rhetoric. Not that the underlying current of resentment did not already exist, mind you, but pushing it forward more strongly in order to sow FUD?
Either way, I expect that if such is not here already, it at least will be on its way. The excuse that this will give Trump to shut down avenues of free speech is just too perfect for me to not at least suspect some kind of involvement beyond mere coincidence.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. I think you’re spot on. The more you sow hate and get people to react violently, the more unstable the country is. That creates a conflict where military may be needed at home rather than abroad and allows other actors to do the things they want.
On the other hand, we do kind of need what happened because we’re slowly, methodically getting our ways to fight back stripped or we’re in such a different class that we just have to take it because we can’t compete.
It’s all fucked up.
Translation: move instances
Its a good idea to give them competitors anyways.
Which one to go to?
Sopuli.xyz is a solid general instance, as is discuss.online.
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.
Zerg sides with Drag on this.
Just because something is legal, it's not necessarily ethical and vice versa.
"Adjustment" is creating accountability by other means.Did you refer to yourself in the third person?
/Update%2034/77-image089.png)
5th
Imprisonment is meant to be a means of reducing possible harm and a means of reform, but if you disagree with that then you should take it up with the legislators in the USA and not the website admins.
7 paragraphs of water. Did you want to convey your point or just to write something?
The point is that this instance operates in a country with stricter laws and if we wanna celebrate dead CEOs we should leave. I plan on leaving. Sorry the Europeans don’t understand what America is going through right now.
That's a summary. Thank you.
I skimmed it, and it went from something about ToS to moderators rule to something about jury nullification(?). The whole thing probably could have been done with some strategic bullet points.
Unless the it has changed, the lemmy.world ToS is about as broad and obscure as it gets. I can sum it up though: Admins are gonna do admin things, moderators are gonna do mod things and users are subject to whatever rules get applied to them in the moment.
Imagine being unable to read, and wanting to still take part in a text-based platform. Are you that one user who swipes images in card view all day they had in the stats the other day?
So does this mean that lemmy.ml is taking over as the biggest instance?
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.
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.
suggesting ‘crimes that have not yet happened’ - itself is not a violation
this was already covered. this is not a new change. if you write "someone should kill person XYZ" this is clearly a call for murder that we do not tolerate here. discussing jury nullification in the same context where murder or other violent crimes are suggested is what was clarified to be subject for moderator action.
Reddit ahh Lemmy instance
I have read it all, and i genuinely still don't know how or what is applied to the dead CEO.
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
Doesn’t the very concept of jury nullification only apply to cases where a crime has already been committed and then a jury is called upon to reach a verdict on said crime? This honestly reads as mental gymnastics. Or perhaps it could be worded better. Do you mean to say that jury nullification will be fine going forward, no matter what the crime, but you still must forbid calls to violence against named or otherwise identifiable individuals or specific groups or people and/or the glorification of violence in general? This would be better wording I think, though still hard to distinguish and enforce consistently. I find the concept of “jury nullification for future crimes” hard to grasp.
Sounds like what they mean is that they don't want the topic of jury nullification to factor into a decision to commit a crime. If the crime is already committed, the topic can not affect that decision since it was already made. Before a crime, they take the discussion to be an incentive to commit a crime. Essentially, "don't be too worried about being prosecuted, the jury can just find you effectively innocent." It can come off as encouraging crime.
Yes it can come off as encouraging crime. So what is the outcome now? Jury nullification ok or not ok? You cannot enforce a rule based on conditional future outcomes. If one wants to eliminate the chance of potentially encouraging future crimes, one needs to ban any and all forms of jury nullification. Was this the decision made? I am unclear on this.
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."
Not according to the very mod who did the action, which you can read about here. The admins panicked over the (very real imho) threat of police repercussions, so they told her to stop such posts and comments (in retrospect, she wished that she had preemptively locked the post so as to be able to hand out fewer bans while still muting the topic for awhile), and then later the admins said to reverse course so she apologized, reversed the bans, and told people to wait on this updated ToS, which took time to draft and get consensus for. It was all extremely quick, including her apology mere hours after the event?
So yes the ToS itself took a few days to arrive, but the decision to stop handing out bans for the topic happened days before that, long before most of this upswell of resistance even had time to propagate much.
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.
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.
I haven’t seen a single comment actually advocating for violence
It's almost as if the mods are doing their jobs...
There's posts all over with CEO faces and names and pretty transparent text related to the "adjuster" finding them.
I get the motivation but it is pretty clear they are saying "hey go kill these specific people"
And countless comments, even in this post saying "all X deserve to die"
Now before people assume me an apologist, my preferred solution would be letting Bernie, AOC, and Warren off the leash to criminalize the profiteering rampant in our society, while nationalizing all basics such as basic shelter, healthcare, education, advocacy, and nutrition.
A society is measured by it's poorest/weakest.
I haven’t seen a single comment actually advocating for violence
Re-read the OP, particularly the third paragraph but also definitely the sixth - it covers exactly this topic.
Agree. And I’d we can get more free speech I think it’s time to relocate things.
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.
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.
I 100% get it.
I mod one sub because it was vacant and someone asked me, and another because I was going to post there but it was vacant so I requested it.
We 100% need more people to step up.
But even if those subs just opened the door, the same ones will still be above everyone in the chain.
Especially with communities where the top couple mods gave up on their account and it's a zombie. Someone could be 3rd or 4th and defacto head mod.
Just a suggestion though, it would have prevented the appearance in this situation from being "lemmy.world's official stance" because one person misunderstood something.
Misunderstandings are going to happen, it's unavoidable. If you want a way to mitigate the damage, it's limit how much reach each person has. Pruning is a natural part of growth, and any mod that gets their feelings hurt about it...
Well, that's the type of person we would be doing this to protect against. Someone who lets their feelings get in the way of moderation.
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.
Then step up to volunteer your services as a mod? Reportedly the tools are terrible and the reason why there are so few mods is that so few are willing to do the job. If a limit were to be placed, without having such volunteers, then how would all those empty positions be filled?
The one who “misinterpreted” the rules is a mod of pretty much all the main subs on world.
That's because few want to. I've been asked myself whether I want to mod multiple communities because the current mod isn't active, and some of those aren't even small.
(edit: Fair enough, did not even know it's public what somebody mods - in that case however you should be inherently aware of how naturally moderating communities is something extremely few people would want to do, and how this naturally results in very few users moderating vast swathes of communities)
If you look at someone's profile, you can see what communities they mod...
Or you can just keep wildly assuming things and hoping you're right.
Or just read the existing reply chain before making your own reply?
You had lots of options bruh. But you've also made over 5% of the comments in this thread, and you didn't do that in any of them either.
Just randomly telling everyone what your uninformed opinion is about stuff...
I'm glad you haven't taken up anyone's offers to mod anything. And I truly mean that.
I think diversifying mods is a good idea.
Great, so then every post gets 10 chances to be incorrectly identified and culled? We don't need diversity of opinion here, we need quite the opposite. We need a unification of opinion so that rules can be solidified around that.
No way, get this outta here. Last thing we need is the same mod on every community on every instance going wild with power. This line of thinking allows and empowered that sort of behavior.
We need a unification of opinion so that rules can be solidified around that.
No one says we wouldn't. That would still have to come from the admins...
The point is one rogue mod can't "misinterpret" something and enforce it in:
News, Politics, World News, and World News Politics.
If they limited a single mods crossover, then it would mitigate the damage done by "misinterpreting".
Like, this is basic compartmentalization, it has nothing to do specifically with the fediverse or even social media...
You just don't set up an organization where a handful of people have day to day control, especially when it's all volunteers. You got to spread it around for a multitude of reasons.
So i can talk about a case of jury nullification that happened last year, but not talk aboit how that should happen every time. Unless the crime was non violent then im ok to say "that should happen all the time".
I know people want to celebrate the perish of a bad guy (me included) but if that endangers existance of lemmy.world then I think it's fair to take this celebration somewhere else.
On the ehtics pov I'm not quite conviced that celebrating death is entirely unethical. Some people are bad and society is better without them and these Dutch, Finnish and German laws might make sense locally but definitely don't make much sense in a global context.
Yeah it also makes sense logically because the law as written assumes death to be inherently negative (see also assisted-suicide issues in many countries). But of course it makes sense for the law to assume this, as otherwise people would find loopholes.
I think many of european restriction laws make sense in local context to protect order. With so many countries and cultures squeezed into one area there's incredible propaganda potential as we can see today. Europe definitely needs these laws but it should not extend to global spaces which are entirely different thing.
It doesn't matter whether the laws make sense or not, they are the context the instance has to operate. Unfortunately many counties in Europe do not have robust freedom of speech provisions.
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.
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.
This is just supporting the death penalty with extra steps. Which is fine, just own it.
In a perfect world he would be institutionalized, not murdered.
But society would need to correctly see the insatiably, sociopathically greedy as severely mentally ill and a harm to others, which they are, and not role models, which they are considered in this broken culture.
With our culture as it is, people like him are a threat that can't be otherwise contained, because they're of use to the economy that works against most of us.
Some people are better off dead, I just don't trust the state to make that decision. If things were normal I wouldn't trust a vigilante either, but I think it's fair to say these are extraordinary times. There are mountains of evidence against all these c suite psychopaths, and if the justice system is just going to keep carving out exceptions for them - well then they're doing it to themselves.
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
Everyone who opposes the assassination of one CEO is glorifying the thousands of murders he committed. It's one or the other.
I’m a Canadian. I want Americans to have a proper health care system. I just don’t think a campaign of assassinations is going to get you there. I think it’s far more likely to backfire and turn the US into a Robocop-style dystopian hellscape where all the big companies have their own private armies working security and regular people aren’t even allowed into their city’s business district without going through security checkpoints.
Why not nationalize all of the health insurance companies, fire all the executives, and turn it all into a public health insurance agency?
Why not nationalize all of the health insurance companies, fire all the executives, and turn it all into a public health insurance agency?
Why not just have Russia end the war in Ukraine and Putin steps down and allows a real democracy to happen?
... Yeah, do you see the issue with your statements now?
Uh...that's not how it works at all. You should get past that logic in 5th or 6th grade.
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.
A very weak response, and several days late. Not impressed.
It's their computers, their network storage, their internet hosting costs - they can do as they please. So too can you, e.g. move elsewhere, or even spin up your own instance. This shit gets expensive though, and people have irl jobs as well - this is VOLUNTEER efforts on their part!?!?
Be the change that you want to see in the world. And then watch as others are similarly not impressed.
Fwiw, I for one am impressed though, at the speed with which they got all of this done. I am not advocating that people use Lemmy.World - in fact I think they should not, but for other reasons of decentralization rather than this - but I do appreciate their efforts on behalf of keeping the entire Fediverse alive and going (as opposed to e.g. the police being able to shut the server down, which may or may not have happened but anyway it's a legit fear that they were reacting against imho), which enriches us all.
It’s their computers, their network storage, their internet hosting costs - they can do as they please. So too can you, e.g. move elsewhere, or even spin up your own instance. This shit gets expensive though, and people have irl jobs as well - this is VOLUNTEER efforts on their part!?!?
This is a weak ass excuse to cover for them, they opened their doors to the internet. They've very deserving of the criticism, and anything else they get as a result. That card is only justified if it were their computer at home. Arguing for private property rights elsewhere is corpo simping.
Be the change that you want to see in the world. And then watch as others are similarly not impressed.
Direct actions against them are also fair too. Don't just boycott, bring them down. We don't need people to make new servers to combat idiots like these, we need them to take down or sabotage the bad servers to limit the pool to ones that are decent.
I for one do not believe any person should be just allowed to operate a business without consequence, same goes for server hosting. If someone chooses to rip them out from under you, you probably deserve it.
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.
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
There is nobody in this world who can act in a way that isn't unpleasant for someone. This is such an unachievable bar as to be laughable.
Hi,
could you send me a link to the comment where you wanted a response from us. Sorry if we forgot to respond.
Hey,
I actually reached out via email and was in contact with someone at [email protected]. I can respond again and see if there is progress this time.
It gets better. If you ask in a thread why something was removed they'll just ban you for having content shown in the mod log
I have a question. Why not just specifically forbid talk involving deliberate jury nullification for the purposes of essentially helping to plan or otherwise be an accessory to a crime? Or just leave it as enacting/planning/otherwise officially endorsing criminal activity is prohibited under TOS and clarify that this type of talk about deliberately planning jury nullification for crimes committed is against TOS under this rule. That's simple enough and wouldn't have taken such a meandering and lengthy post. Additionally, the statement about what jurisdiction and laws this instance is subject to can be added to the TOS and the laws clarified with links to official documentation accordingly. This post is a mess.
endorsing criminal activity
Because now that wording, means anyone advocating for legalization of Marijuana falls under this umbrella.
As people we need to be able to voice our opinions on the legality and/or morality of certain laws. It's a tricky thing to word correctly, while toeing the line of what is acceptable and what is not.
-
Everything was fine until the "Jury nullification" thing? Apparently that's an American thing where a state can disregard a federal law if they find it to be unconstitutional.
What does that have to do with Lemmy moderation?
I'm sorry if this is very obvious, but I'm not American, and just learned the meaning of the term from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)Wrong Nullification, Jury Nullification is when jurors say "not guilty" as the result of a trial despite evidence undoubtedly pointing to a crime as the law sees it.
Yes thanks, I somehow fucked up my search. Now it makes sense.
It's not really even that. It's when jurors believe the law should not apply in that specific instance for some reason.
For example, you might be opposed to the laws against drug possession in small amounts. You could vote "not guilty" if you were on a jury where someone was on trial for violating that law, even if it's 100% clear the defendant did, in fact, break the law. That would be nullification.
I think I see where the admins are coming from in the sense of using nullification as a way to get off from a crime in planning (but, let's face it, the odds that are EXTREMELY slim), but they already covered planning crimes as being against the policy. Why bother calling out the nullification part?
Well its not the state ignoring federal law. It the jury voting innocent when they know the person Is guilty.
1 jury member is free to vote innocent or guilty 2 jurers cant be sued or prosecuted if they reached the wrong verdict 3 the jury is the final say in guilt or innocent
Therefore, when a jury votes innocent despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, then the person is innocent. The state as Lost it's ability to enforce its law. And no one can
Huh, so hos instance has officially become garbage and it's time to dump it? Anyone have suggestions for a reasonable instance?
If you want a US based-instance
- https://discuss.online blocks hexbear and lemmygrad
- https://lemmy.today does not block anyone
If you want a non US instance
- https://sopuli.xyz blocks hexbear and lemmygrad
- https://lemm.ee has a very short blocklist
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!
I read your post with some interest, and was going to respond with a European view on free speech. Until I got to your last line, ‘you Europeans are clueless’. No point arguing with you then. Take your freedoms to another instance and enjoy the echo chamber.
The europeans defending this asshole with bUt ItS mUrDeR are fucking clueless and lucky enough to not live in America where such actions are completely fair game and well deserved.
Before you go too deep, the mod responsible apologized, the ToS were amended, and this is all being discussed out in the open. The 24 hours mutings are already rescinded, and no new bans are said to be planned as a result of discussing the topic moving forward (as you said, unless it looks to be planning something in the future, which is just a whole other thing entirely). i.e. in the face of this huge event the admins PANICKED, but ultimately everything is already calming down and returning to a semblance of normalcy - and that whole process took less than half a week! This is nothing at all like spez's take-it-or-leave-it Reddit.
That said, it's good to take advantage of decentralization anyway, and yes the anarchy instance (that you mentioned below) looks awesome (I enjoy much content hosted on it and greatly respect its admin and their overall contributions to us all here:-) and I think you will be happy there. If this event caused you to question your priorities and what you hope to see moving forward into the future, then that's a good thing to increase your future happiness level:-). Though I wanted to point out that in that case it's less "Lemmy.World = bad" and more that you are finding a better fit for your needs. LW is what it is, and it's not Reddit, even if it is not anarchy either. I for one find it absolutely fantastic that both can exist on the Fediverse side by side together, enriching all of us, each according to our own needs and desires:-).
See, and this is why other countries have different laws, because the last part in particular is not protected in most countries.
It’s not why they have other laws.* We just have vastly different cultural beliefs of what’s important to us. We have positive and negative freedom - for example, we are free to practice whatever religion we want no matter how ridiculous (flying spaghetti monster anyone?) and we are free from religion, as in the state can’t establish it.
I bring up religion because it’s in the same amendment as free speech, but more importantly from a historical sense, for what it’s worth Europe had centuries of brutal warfare between Catholics and Protestants (which as a non Christian is just crazy to me, y’all believe in almost the same things in general) and our founding puritans were getting persecuted in England for their beliefs. So freedom of thought was the most important thing they sought leaving England to come here, and it’s why it’s our first amendment in our bill of rights.
*germany with its Holocaust history is an exception. If I went marching around with a sign that says death to Jews I’d be thrown in prison for some time.
Come for the lecture on free speech, don't bother staying because why would you?
I do not agree that the American system of free speech is the best. I might defend my opinion if I am invited to do so, but it's very boring (viz) and I wouldn't want to sit through my own explanation.
This seems reasonable on the whole.
The nuances on this issue are challenging. On the one hand, there are those that simply see the murder as being abhorrent. On the other, there are those who see it simply as being comeuppance. I believe the issue is one coming out of deep seated and wide-spread resentment at structural inequality and in many cases, personal stories of suffering caused by the failure of the existing system. The victim was a key player in that system, but he was also a human being with children.
A key function of social media is to provide a space for debate about social issues, and to facilitate discussions about how we can collectively build a better future. The challenge for moderators is to try to find a line between extremes that balances conflicting perspectives in a way that respects the community, and I believe the intent of the fediverse to be free from corporate control of discussion. In terms of rules, the key sentence in the ToS seems to be "We do not tolerate serious threats or calls for violence."
I would suggest that:
- comments/posts that actively call for violence should be removed. e.g. "Someone should shoot all CEO's".
- comments/posts that more reflect a dissatisfaction with the system should not. e.g. "He contributed to untold suffering. I'm not surprised someone took matters into their own hands."
His life isn't more valuable because he had children. Sorry.
In fact there are plenty children who would specifically mark out one or both of their parents as having been detrimental to their life.
As I understand it, unless you have lawyers on retainer you can't really make a good call when the second part is okay and when it isn't. What is feels-wise a "call to violence" and what is legally a Call To Violence™️does not always match up. Hence most moderation inherently overshoots massively and casts an extremely wide net, for legal protection.
I really like your post and the changes! Obviously it is a very divisive and polarized event. In my opinion, the lines you have drawn help in creating a productive discussion environment. I am very happy to have an admin team who can deal so well with this situation - thank you for your work and this post! I sincerely appreciate it.
Personally tired of hearing about it. I disagree on the morality of this and made an acct on another instance. Can do same with communities on lemmy.world if we could all agree to move to them.
That option was never off the table. It would make it easier for those of us who prefer justice over murder to block the community of those who want society to devolve into chaos and anarchy. Those who call for violence and some half assed revolution. I don’t need you here.
I’m tired of hearing people espouse their basest thoughts only to come up with murder is justified. It took you two seconds to come up with that? What happens next? When the tribe has devolved to a point where even they could be the target who will be there to say maybe we went too far. Well the line was passed miles ago and you didn’t even realize you crossed it.
All this has taught me is that we have a severe morality and ethics problem. It probably happened about a generation ago. I wonder what stopped being instilled or taught (or who did the teaching) to cause this devolution. That’s what I’m worried about right now.
When the tribe has devolved to a point where even they could be the target
Oh, NOW we're worried about a slippery slope?
I would have thought that point would be the time a classroom of elementary school students got shot up. (Not that time, the other time.)
B-b-B-b-B-ut...!
OK, boomer.
Historically we know exactly what happens next. You more than likely wouldn't be here at all if historically class wars didn't happen. You either lack the context and understanding to empathize with millions of people who died because this man felt the need to enrich himself and the shareholders of the company at the extreme detriment to the rest of society, or you're deliberately ignoring facts to suit a personal belief and opinion.
I have often been told by people who think their politics is more important than my mental health that I don't have to interact with political posts and I can just ignore them. I'm not going to say that to you because I don't think it's fair to you. But keyword blocking on the other hand is a thing and if this detrimentally affects your mental health then you should take the necessary steps to protect it.
I find it interesting that you seem to think people who think he got a measured response and outcome to the way he lived should leave though.
It's an interesting combination, too. In very devolved industrial countries like the US, people are both more readily violent and the rich have successfully told the poor that the very poor are a big part of their problem.
Good. huge W's to the admin team. thanks for having some maturity
Makes sense to me.
room temp IQ ^^
What if there were a far-right populist movement advocating online for murdering specific leftists and encouraging anyone who might act on it to do so, by also promising to nullify valid criminal charges for such murders and encouraging others to do the same?
You don't see how in some places that might fall under accomplice liability? Encouragement plus shared intent equals accomplice. Don't even need to take a step toward the criminal purpose, as with conspirator liability. Surprised you didn't know that. Seems like you have room temp IQ.
Me who just reads the news feeds I sub to and not noticing EU Drama, or that I'm on a Non-US Hosted Website all this time. LOL
So you mean to tell me this is not a Motorhead Fansite??? Well color me red
Awesome response. I do not hold any grudges against the early over-moderation that took place. It is truly a sensitive subject. However, I feel allowing free speech (within reason) in a situation like this is important for both sides (the Bourgeoisie and all of us poors) as it gives us a chance to vent some pent up steam and it hopefully gives them an insight into how close things are to getting out of control and give them a chance to correct some bad behaviors.
TIL
While I agree that the murder of the CEO can be morally justified in certain aspects, we have to face the facts. Murder is murder, and I believe glorification of it is wrong. Wouldn’t the killing of a CEO just lead to the appointment of another, making the whole thing pointless? It’s possible that a new CEO will do things differently, but they’d probably do more or less the same. In the end, all the murder achieves is CEOs fearing for their safety and eventually hiring bodyguards, making them even more disconnected from society, and even less likely to donate to charity or the poor. For these reasons, I think lemmy.world is doing the right thing, I don’t think that murder of anyone not convicted of war crimes should be glorified, I’d prefer to stay neutral on such topics.
It's weird how lemmy was going full NRA.
Honestly, I went back to Reddit to take a look and they were acting so normal in comparison.
I don't support the CEO either, but this place was starting to sound more like truth social and 4chan
Reddit is literally acting the same way, I've seen cross posts the entire time
Same on Twitter and Blue sky
Hell I've even seen it on tumblr
Is this TOS number 15 ? Or 24?
Before we get to the changes, we want to remind everyone that we are not a (US) free speech instance.
I've never understood this concept. There is no such thing as "(US) free speech". Threats, coercion and blackmail obviously notwithstanding, you're either free to express yourself, or you are not. Of course I understand that right of free expression isn't something that applies to many European people, and there may be pros and cons to that, but nevertheless there is no middle ground on free speech--you're either free or you aren't.
But regardless of that, this is your own private community and you're well within your rights to moderate it however the hell you want, "free speech" really doesn't come into it at all. That's one of the main benefits to federation.
You really need to read up on some laws in your country.
So theres this document called the US Constitution along with its 27 amendments and it uses a lot of big words and phrases like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, Emancipation, etc. You probably wouldn't get it.
Just wait until you hear about the The United States Code...
"Freedom" is a concept, it's neither something unique to America nor is it reliant on any document.
You are either free to express yourself without persecution, or you are not.
The press are either free to publish without persecution, or they are not.You see, there's this thing called the Theory of Forms. You probably wouldn't get it.
Before we get to the changes, we want to remind everyone that we are not a (US) free speech instance.
That my friend, is a huge issue.
Even US free speech arguments don't apply here. That refers to what the US government can restrict US citizens from talking about. A private computer system, especially one located in and operated out of a foreign country, has never fallen under this umbrella.
People confuse the meaning of the first amendment all the time. It's annoying.
Man, it must kind of like, suck to have any of your speech limited in some parts of the world not the USA.
You can pinpoint anything about America all you want, we hear the shit all of the time. Europeans and other international entities alike just loooooove having a field day with making fun of America. Fine, whatever, some of it is valid and we don't have all of our shit together. But in some cases and in some matters, America still has some edge over whatever the EU is doing.
And the sore fact of the matter is, is that if the EU was so cocky, how come some of the time it can't do the big boy decisions without America's assistance, huh? All the while some countries limiting freedom of expression and speech.
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.
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.
Being happy that a man responsible for the deaths of thousands is an "American Centric View" now.
And don't call yourself "world" if you cannot reasonably accommodate a wide rage of views. Call yourself "Dutch" and make your limitations clear.
You world sycophants want the benefits of being the authoritative instance without the responsibility.
Still waiting for a large generalist US-centric instance to emerge
Some of the mods have always been on top of removing posts promoting / glorifying violence against others. Other mods have not. This is a hodgepodge mix of unpaid volunteers, helping on a platform that has very very rudimentary administrative/ moderation tools with very poor systems of notifications and reporting.
If you think the are opportunities for things to run smoother, I would recommend helping out or evangelizing for more people to help out if you’re too busy.
Simply being mad at the admins doesn’t help - especially when they’re trying navigate nuance and a janky platform with good intent.
Nice of you to not give a shit about the potential for other people to get into legal trouble so you can get angry on the internet. Enjoy your new instance.
You assume no one understands the nuances of hosting in a country without free speech laws as liberal as the US.
Or they may just don't care. I've seen countless of people who not just justify the murder, but also think it should be an inspiration for what should be happen. How people can't wait to see rich people get murdered. How this should be the new norm and how to fix the system. Which I find extra funny when the same country just elected a person of the same making as the guy who got shot (and now people try to claim that everyone's on board with justifying the murder, including maggats).
Over half of America didn't vote as they see that both democrats and republicans take money from the rich and use it to make the middle class disappear. If it was easier to vote and we got rid of first past the pole, more people would vote. But alas both sides want first past the post as it keeps them in power. So only small minority that did vote did this, and most of America didn't want either side. But what you gonna do when both sides don't want you to live. Yes one side is extremely worse, but it is hard to see that when prices go up and your family might die due to higher ups not caring about the help.
Don't underestimate the amount of disinformation propaganda pushing even in such a small platform as here, potentially by people radicalized elsewhere but have now decided to bring it here. Not everyone is a bot (nobody here that I know of even, I'm just bringing up the infamous phrase), yet not everyone may be fully cognizant of the reasons behind their own beliefs either.
