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.
I agree with your sentiment... But . world isn't located in the US. I understand why mods wouldn't want to get tangled up in our mess and bring home a whole heap of trouble to their doorstep for being nothing but gracious hosts.
This is a uniquely American problem that requires an American solution.
https://lemmy.world/post/21754967
Good discussion. I personally feel we need a US instance physically hosted in a neutral location.
I'd do it myself if I had the time. Reality is I can't consistently make that time commitment. I'd be happy to throw my hat in the ring for setup/config/monitoring initialization.
Best you're going to get is a strong blue state. If you host it outside the US then you are subject to that country's laws.
https://discuss.online/ could be it. They just defederated hexbear
Of fucking course this comment was removed. Mods remain as thin-skinned as ever.
!yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com To call them out.
@Makhno@lemmy.world you should also join in as well. Hold their feet to the fire and make their behavior known.
Read what they actually said. You're just making yourself look like a fool. If you wrote, "The guy who killed the UHC CEO should get off" you'd be fine. You're not allowed to say things like, "We should go kill more CEOs, the juries won't convict!" If you can't see why one is okay and the other is bad then you're on the very fringe out there and you should re-evaluate your ideas.
To be fair, the line between those two is pretty thin. One does imply the other. You drawing a gulf between them is silly to me.
It's not a thin line. Anyone trying to make it one knows exactly what they're doing.
It's the same statement with extra steps. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.
It's really not.