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.
You must log in or # to comment.
So discussion of jury nullification is ok as a general topic. If someone mentions JN in the context of a crime that has not yet been committed then that’s not ok. If the crime has already been committed then that’s ok. If the crime is not violent in nature then we can discuss JN, and if we are just having a general conversation about JN that’s ok too.
Specifically, the concern is that talking about JN in the context of some hypothetical violent crime that has not yet been committed could be interpreted as advocating for violence.
This sounds pretty stupid so far, but my question is then, why wrap the ToS around specifically jury nullification? Why not just reiterate the ‘no advocating for violence’ policy.
If someone is advocating for violence, then adding on some point about jury nullification is irrelevant, they are already breaking the rule.
The ToS don’t specify anything about jury nullification, they just said it explicitly in this thread because apparently they removed comments about it in the past even if it was about crimes that already happened, and they wanted to make it clear where the (new) line exactly is.
This seems like a double standard: Should any defense of the US healthcare system also be banned because it barbarically leads patients to die waiting for care in an intentional way?
What would the double standard be? Defending the US healthcare system is deranged behavior but doesn’t qualify as “advocating for violence” under any standard.
And besides, you can hardly defend it without blatant misinformation, and that’s banned anyway so it doesn’t really make a difference.
As a non US citizen defending the US healthcare system certainly seems at least a little insane.
There is genuinely only 1 thing that matters. People are desperate for change, while Democrats are viciously protecting the status quo, and Republicans are actively making it worse, and enriching themselves. Healthcare, inflation, over charging for milk, literally everything down to the fact they can’t even time stop lights well enough to curb traffic jams so cars break down faster and you pay more to fix it. I do not envy your position being forced to exist by their laws. The day is coming when sides will be required to be chosen. Probably by them. How many ip’s have you already turned over? Keep this in mind. They are the ones that get eaten, no matter how powerful they may posture to be now. They are weak without the people they are enslaving, and the people they need to maintain control are starting to starve.
“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
Jury nullification is a completely valid topic/concern to discuss in the context of the alleged UHC CEO shooter.
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 ain’t american so…less bullshit would be nice.
I don’t expect our “free speech” to be much of a differentiating factor for much longer either
Wow what a crock of shit
Why does shit always come in crocks? Why can’t it come in a jeroboam?
What a jeroboam of shit!
Reddit was the free speech instance all along? Honestly, with the mods clarifying this I’m asking myself - why the fuck am I on Lemmy again?
deleted by creator
Reddit
Definitely not
If you want to change instances, 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
Bear in mind that instances being hosted in the US do not automatically mean they’ll implement full free speech. Discuss.online for instance, uses the Code of Conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
You’re comparing Reddit removing links to his Manifesto, with Lemmy.world removing comments and posts seen as glorifying the righteous actions he allegedly took, or thinking through the morality of it?
Reddit WASN’T doing that. Lemmy.world WAS.
Likewise given the mod post we’re commenting on, it’s likely Lemmy.world would ALSO remove links to his manifesto.
So yes, there is scope to say there’s more free speech on Reddit on this issue.
It is unclear which instances you’re recommending for better levels of free speech (I asked about Lemmy instances, not discord, a different service entirely).
it’s likely Lemmy.world would ALSO remove links to his manifesto.
No
If it’s confirmed, I don’t see why not. Depends on the community, of course. I’m sure !lemmybewholesome would remove it.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13922763
If you want other news communities, there is !usa@midwest.social. There is also the recent !askUSA@discuss.online, with a specific thread about jury nullification here: https://lemmy.world/post/22973877
Lemmy is not as monolithic as Reddit. If you don’t like !news@lemmy.world, just change communities.
What post have you been reading? There is nothing forbidding you from talking positively about what happened or dunking on Thompson.
This is one of the top posts on .world for the past month and the comments are full of people memeing about it or saying he deserved it.
Haha, your post that’s “been up for a month” has been up for a week dude. Don’t just lie to me so overtly. Anyone can click your lemmy link and see it says 1w.
Also, you’re comparing the OP which is for ALL OF Lemmy.world, to the post you linkedbon Reddit, which is for a single Popculture related subreddit? r/Popculture is just one sub my guy. You’re not being serious here. You’re being defensive and making argumentative mistakes.
There is nothing forbidding you from talking positively about what happened or dunking on Thompson.
‘glorifying violence’, and hence against the ToS:
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.
As they say earlier, they’re not in the US they’re in Western Europea and so trying to pussy foot on free speech.
The problem is they’re being mealy mouthed cowards still in writing this long verbose post. So it’s obscuratan managereal talk still.
Just say either: “we are going based on least harm so are allowing for the idea/posts that say killing CEOs doing mass-harm is allowed as long as it’s not written with specific instructions on how to do that”, or “we are against any positive talk of violence to beings/creatures” (which is what they say in part above).
You know if you’re going to run a platform you should just go read the speech codes of the laws where it is located, then interpret them broadly in proportion to the profits or net value of the site (which is generally how courts approach such things, eg. “you are a small site, with not many users we accept you may have trouble with moderation”). Especially if you’re a user/volunteer run, and distributed site/app, that’s not profit driven. General that means there’s no just and proportional reason or target organization for fines.
The problem with Lemmy is that they aren’t aiming for anything Reddit hasn’t already. If you’re going to take this “we’re Federated and distributed” approach, you have to consider these things, and even have some plans on changing server locations as soon as you receive a legal threat.
You want to be something different to Reddit via being Federated? Learn to duck and weave systems of controlbas per your structure. Don’t just become a blander version of Reddit. That’s sad… and for goodness sakes, don’t beat around the bush like this. Make stark definitions so we all know what ball game we’re playing and why.
Haha, your post that’s “been up for a month” has been up for a week dude. Don’t just lie to me, it’s silly.
…are you able to read? “one of the top posts on .world for the past month” means that, among what has been posted in the past month, that post is one of the most upvoted. I never referred to how long it’s been up, I’m just saying that being an extremely popular post, it’s impossible for admins to not have seen it. And yet it’s still up, with comments full of insults for the CEO. Which means those comments are perfectly okay.
Also, you’re comparing the OP which is for ALL OF Lemmy.world, to the post you linkedbon Reddit, which is for a single Popculture related subreddit? r/Popculture is just one sub my guy.
The r/popculture mods are acting after being specifically notified by Reddit Admins about it. Which means they explicitly told them they’re not okay with those things.
Do I have to highlight what YOU quoted?
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.
It literally says that it’s allowed.
and for goodness sakes, don’t beat around the bush like this. Make stark definitions so we all know what ball game we’re playing and why.
There is a stark definition. Don’t talk about killing people that are currently alive. That’s it.
I would probably drop it
using volunteers for moderation is the root of the problem on both Lemmy and reddit. Its how the zionists took over r/worldnews.
I mean, people paid for it on Facebook and the likes are arguably even worse at their job so…
The other dude is confusing. Did you find an answer
What do you want an answer for, “why is Lemmy better than Reddit”?
No they want to know the instance for the greatest free speech, without someone saying “discord bans hexbear links”, repeatedly as if anyone asked about what discord does.
First, that’s not what you asked.
Second, there’s not a single mention to Discord in their comments.
Third, they literally listed instances under the US law, which I suppose is what you’re asking for.
They probably confused discuss.online the Lemmy instance, and Discord
Does anyone know of a “(US) free speech instance”?
Twitter 🤣
Go post Cis.
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
Bear in mind that instances being hosted in the US do not automatically mean they’ll implement full free speech. Discuss.online for instance, uses the Code of Conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
Thanks for the better options!
Woah, I get not allowing advocating for violence, but restricting people from discussing the topic of jury nullification is pretty messed up regardless of how you feel about the killing.
But aren’t they saying They’re restricting it less? Or am I reading it wrong?
You’re reading correctly.
That’s the oldest trick in the propaganda arsenal, there ain’t one English speaking legal or education system that wants every citizen to know they can just decide to let it slide. They actively, and with insane propaganda levels, push this “rule of law” bullshit that results in jurors on the news after the trial saying shit like “I didn’t know we could just let them go even if they did it” Zero critical thinking, they needed to be told.
Shills never tell you who they shill for but checking who they can’t criticize is interesting data point
I always had my suspicion about world modding and this sort of confirms that bias.
Between that and tankie devs, it makes my happy that I moved my primarily used account to Mbin lol, better interface and features anyways.
-
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.
Jury nullification is a real thing, but it is often misunderstood … mostly because right-wing libertarians and sovereign-citizen kooks have spent decades pushing conspiracy theory about it.
It isn’t an affirmative right of individual citizens to get onto juries and individually block the enforcement of the law. An individual juror cannot nullify. Rather, jury nullification is a logical consequence of two important rules in our legal system:
- Double jeopardy: if a defendant gets a “not-guilty” verdict from a jury, that defendant cannot be retried for that same crime.
- Juror independence: the judge cannot order the jury to return a particular verdict, nor punish them for the verdict they return.
Double jeopardy is in the US Constitution. Juror independence is inherited from English common law, where it was established in 1670 in an infamous case where a judge imprisoned and tortured jurors for not returning the verdict the judge wanted.
Because of these two principles, if a jury returns a “not-guilty” verdict, the defendant goes free; even if the verdict seems blatantly contrary to the facts and the law. Even if the jury is blatantly wrong, nobody in the system has any authority to do anything about it — not the judge, not the prosecutor, not the cops.
If you are summoned to be on a jury and you make it clear that you do not intend to judge the case on the facts and the law, you will be dismissed from the jury in voir dire. If you preach nullification to your fellow jurors, you might cause a mistrial: the defendant will not be freed; the court will just get a new jury, and the defendant will go back to jail in the meantime.
A mistrial does not free the defendant. A hung jury (refusing to come to a consensus) does not free the defendant. Only a not-guilty verdict frees the defendant.
I didn’t realize these clarifications - thanks for writing up this info!
Cool.
In what capacity does that apply to my protesting Lemmy.world’s frankly idiotic stance of blocking discussion of jury nullification?
Because what they seem to want to prevent is the active advocation or plan to nullify a jury for someone who plans to commit a crime. The problem is the way they worded it. They don’t want you or anyone to plan a violent crime together with likely jurors with the intent of getting the jury nullified on purpose so they can get away with it. But that means you can’t talk about what things might potentially be reason for jury nullification and I don’t think that’s the intent of the laws in their region or fair to users.
Either way, having the information in the above comment is important context for why someone might want to plan a crime and a jury nullification at the same time.
-
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.
Many Americans have a weak grasp on even the most basic details of their constitution. During my stay there, I heard “free speech” improperly being used as a defense by people of many different backgrounds.
This drives me crazy. I’ve commented this before, but I’ll say it again:
People in the US love to cry first amendment (freedom of speech, etc) any time something they say has consequences.
- Sexually harass a coworker? Freedom of speech!
- Business owner says something bigoted and people stop patronizing their business? Freedom of speech!
- Get banned from a Facebook group for being an ass? Freedom of speech!
- Kicked out of a shop for your offensive shirt? Freedom of speech!
Funny how the same people with wE tHe PeOpLe bumper stickers are the ones who haven’t actually bothered to read their own bill of rights. These people also seem to think that “free speech” (as they define it) should only apply to speech they agree with.
Those are the idiots, the real users of the first amendment are the assholes who allowed corporations to have free speech.
This is what led to to the Citizens United decision that has pumped billions into our election cycle (which now never ends). It has created a media that is dependent on those billions in ad revenue, YouTube included. And along with the Super PAC rules, allows unlimited bribing of our “elected” officials.
deleted by creator
It’s still unethical to bar speech that you don’t agree with
Sure, but not if that speech is incitement to violence. Then it’s a legal responsibility to shut it down.
No, there’s no legal responsibility to shut down violent speech in any country, including the Netherlands. If there was, then speaking in support of capitalism would be illegal. If there’s a law on the books that says it prohibits violent speech, it’s not enforced consistently.
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.
Exactly right.
Free speech means that the government can’t prosecute you for what you say (except in certain specific circumstances).
Free speech doesn’t mean that I can’t kick you out of my house for what you say.
What we need is a government-operated fediverse instance to serve as a public forum.
What we need is a government-operated fediverse instance to serve as a public forum.
That sounds like something Bernie or AOC would advocate for. It would honestly be pretty lit for a bit, before being taken over by lobby industry bots.
A huge number of Americans are dumbfucks. I deal with that every day.
911 = life or limb emergency.
I can assure you that 98% of Americans can’t even grasp that simple concept.
Misinformation.
Many places here in the states don’t operate a separate, non-emergency line and calling 911 is appropriate even when it isn’t an emergency.
You should let them know that it’s an non-emergency upon calling.
911 = life or limb emergency.
But have you considered that my neighbors are being pretty loud, and I would really like some police to go knock on their door and tell them to be quiet?
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.
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.
Broseph, I can’t have sympathy. The income inequality won’t let me. People aren’t cheering the unaliving necessarily, but the fact that one of these people actually answered for their crimes, in whatever form that took. Because courts weren’t gonna make him.
No no, I’m cheering the killing.
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.
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.
They are not on the team working class. Take note people.
Yup, I’d say these instances are cover for neoliberal and/or reactionary sentiments. Honestly with the attention federation has recieved I think we’d be foolish not to consider that the biggest open sign-up instances have an agenda or at least are being influenced in some way, with or without their knowledge or permission.
If you think that’s going too far, I’d say the purpose of a system is what it does, and these large instances are systems unto themselves, and they serve this purpose whether intentionally or not.
In what way would it and thus us be influenced? Also what motivations would admins have?
Do you know the admins personally? Do you know who they are or where their funding is from? Do you know where they draw their pool of moderators from?
If you don’t have those answers, well, I don’t either, but those are possible avenues. We know influence campaigns from all sectors target social media, why would this place be any different?
Aight, guess I’ll start looking for a better instance
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
