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.
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.
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.
How would I know? And why do you think other people should risk it on your behalf even if it hasn’t happened yet? You have to follow the laws of the country your server is in or you put yourself at risk. That’s just how the world works.
Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else who isn’t actually paying for and maintaining the .world server should be telling them that they should risk themselves for us. That is really not our call.
As a side-note, based on the amount of hate speech some instances still allow, it seems like there isn’t really any threat to this kind of discourse online on a platform that small.
You mean .world? I don’t think it’s your call or my call or anyone else’s call when it comes to whether or not other people should risk legal trouble for the benefit of internet bitching.
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.
The USDefaultism is already strong back in reddit, but sadly it seems to be worse on Lemmy. Tired of seeing folks from US acting like they’re the main characters, kinda puts me off using this platform
!asklemmy@lemmy.world added a rule to remove US politics questions. That was a welcome change
It’s an American story, effecting 100’s of millions of Americans directly. So no, not this this time. See a therapist to work out all this reflexive anti Americaism
It’s an American story, effecting 100’s of millions of Americans directly.
And it’s not an American server. So live with it. You’re not entitled to do whatever you want in whatever space you want just because you’re American and have feelings about something.
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
If the last criteria is defederation from hexbear.net, then there is strong hope for Discuss.Online. Though I don’t know if they would want to host a political community that would involve such controversial topics. They probably would be welcoming to like an AskUSA one.
Look through this list and sort by monthly active users (MAU): https://fedidb.org/software/lemmy
The server location info doesn’t seem 100% accurate, but it should still help. I would suggest either the instance I use, lemmy.sdf.org (run by an American, technology-oriented non-profit org), or perhaps lemmy.zip, which also looks good - I started looking into it but haven’t fully vetted it yet.
By the way, I don’t think that being in a larger instance has much benefit, by the way. In fact, I tried one of the larger ones and found that it suffered performance-wise, so I went back. You can get pretty much everything from every other Lemmy instance, especially one that doesn’t block and is not blocked by other instances (lemmy.sdf.org also applies here).
Edit: lemmy.zip seems to be subject to the laws of the UK, according to their code of conduct.
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).
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.
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.
No, I’m sorry, but this is straight up Russian disinformation and non voters are even dumber than those voting for Trump, since they automatically enable the bad actors, which is how you end up with despots like Putin btw who pushes for this exact kind of “both sides are the same” & “you can’t trust either side / truth” type bullshit. Voting starts not at the presidential level, but at the local one. You can vote everyone in & out, and if there’s truly no candidate to your liking (even though you should AT THE VERY LEAST vote for the lesser evil in any case) go into politics yourself. In a democracy, the voters are the ones who are responsible for making changes. But of course, if you elect people like Trump (not just Trump himself), then yes, you end up with a broken system that gets more and more dismantled - until it is gone and you truly don’t need to bother voting anymore. And that’s the point where you’re at now, thanks to people’s wrong vote, or lack of a vote. Both cases are responsible for this, dooming not just the US, but the rest of the world, thanks to Trumps (anti) climate policies.
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.
There are a large number of people on Lemmy who believe that you could be literally Hitler and that a human life is still worth saving. To some, human life is some unwavering near-godlike thing that nobody should ever take away.
But I like math. And I know that sometimes a -1 gives you positive values.
Advocating murder says nothing about the murder victim’s character, and everything about yours. It’s like how charity says nothing about the people you give to, and everything about you.
I’m sorry if this isn’t straightforward.
I’m sorry, definitely on the fence philosophically about the line in the sand with vigilante killing, but wtf are you trying to say about charity and what it says about the person? I’m imagining someone sipping on their expensive tea sitting in their “designer” chair reminiscing about their grand-papi’s charity advice. Meanwhile, inheriting a large bank account and looking down on anyone extreme enough to illicit actual change in a defunct system that you benefit comfortably from.
If you’re unfamiliar with the realities of charities or meant something different than I apologize
Advocating murder doesn’t say anything about the victim’s character, and it doesn’t have to. The victim spoke for himself, making 8 figures by denying >30% of claims. The world is better without him, and it would be even better without more people like him. Hopefully that happens because other people like him see this as a sort of Ghost of Christmas Future and start getting their shit together like Ebeneezer did
It’s genuinely hard to recognize when a rule that almost always applies doesn’t apply to the specific situation at hand.
Killing bloodthirsty rich people who are beyond the reach of the law and can’t be stopped any other way is a valid exception to the otherwise valid rule that murder is bad.
So obviously the last part can be turned around, right? If we had reason to assume you kill 5 people later in your life, it’s worth killing you now, right? Or what is the cutoff value?
(mind you I’m not disagreeing with the underlying statement, but who gets to make the judgement call?)
Good thing no assumptions have to be made. CEO’s policies had already killed hundreds of thousands of people.
But I like math. And I know that sometimes a -1 gives you positive values.
It’d sure be nice if this guy’s death would result in fewer people being denied life saving care for spurious reasons, but I’m definitely not holding my breath
His death alone won’t change anything, what will change this is something that violates TOS to mention.
If things get better for a week while the insurance companies try to hide from the fallout, hundreds of lives will be saved or made measurably better.
If one harmful CEO’s murder makes society better for a week…
I’d be banned for finishing that sentence.
Yeah, because a CEO is ultimately just another employee in shareholder capitalism. If the shareholders want more money, and of course they do, things will continue as usual after this brief, unplanned change on the board. I’d fully expect anesthesia not being covered to happen too, just not right now, they’ll wait for marketing to says it’s safe in a couple months.
Not hard at all. Both responsible for many millions of needless deaths while holding power.
Who decides who deserves it? How many denied claims qualify to deserve to be killed? 100? 10? How about 2? How about 2 that didn’t kill anyone but made the persons incapacitated in some way? That’s a slippery slope, and in these current times of misinformation and troll farms I wouldn’t like people to be classified as “deserving to die” by the internet, specially when a big chunk of society is easily manipulated.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the allies killing Hitler Nazis during WWII?
So, numerically, I couldn’t figure this out easily to an exact integer. BUT, it’s very easy to figure out when taken to extreme integers.
I’d term this something like a “morality margin of error”. We should all struggle with questions like the trolley problem, weighing one life against five, debating the complicity of the action, etc. There shouldn’t be any easy shortcut answers to deciding the validity of life. But if there were TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE on the track that the trolley is headed down, and only one on the other, then those morality questions absolutely should get much easier.
I’ll never understand this bizarre stance people have where corporate billionaires, millionaires and shit get a magical pass from the people. These scum, influence and infect countless of lives by one swift decision that could happen in a minute to even the next day. They are operating on an entirely different level than anyone else’s and the only other people that can understand them - are other millionaires and billionaires.
So what if one piece of shit CEO gets gunned down? I wish it’d happen more often, it’d send an empowering message. Trump could’ve gotten gunned down and that would’ve been the same level. I wouldn’t weep.
People forget these things until they hear the stories of their friends, their family, their friends’ family .etc all are struggling, suffering and on the edge of their lives simply because of one way or another - the fault of these entitled and rich shitbags.
I’m not excusing or condoning the actions any murderer takes. Life is taken of another life. But I will make exceptions to the rule and the gunning of this CEO is one of them.
Exactly that. And anyone shutting down the conversation is just siding with them.
I excuse this guy’s actions and hope it’s not just a one-time target. Shit has to change. Let’s trade in a few hundred for a few million saved.
Look, I excuse this guy action, and I’ll never shed 1/10th of a tear for the CEO And I’m rooting for smiling man to not get caught. But in Europe, we gave this prohibition about calls for hatred and murder. It’s culturally strong. Notice that it didn’t prevent us from guillotining a king or two. Anyway, give lemmy.world admins a break. There are laws they’re meant to comply to and we’re a vast fediverse. Better keep your anger for our actual enemies.
Exactly that. And anyone shutting down the conversation is just siding with them.
Not the point of the admin post up top, mind you. As so often, if you’re an adminsitrator, it really does not matter fuck all what you think about an issue, it’s what your server wants to, can or has to think about an issue.
I don’t even believe in the death penalty for most murderers.
But when you’re murder count would make any serial in killer that did it with their bare hands instead of an email in all of history, with the cold calculation of a sociopath, there’s really nothing more to say.
I can empathize with murders of passion, even misguided, ignorant hatred as that was usually something impressed into them, but murders of “We’ll if I murder these thousands of people, 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.
It’s crazy to see the stark difference in
- CEO killed and that’s bad, you can’t say anything negative about dead people with families
And
- President of Syria is dead and that’s good, we should all be able to agree that Freedom Rings with the execution of this human filth
Real mixed bag of moderation from a community that seems overwhelmingly in favor of killing certain kinds of people and extremely touchy about other kinds of people.
If you doubt this, stop and do one simple thought experiment. What would you be allowed to post on Lemmy if police identify, track down, and execute the CEO Slayer?
It’s all down to the instance owners political compass. However they ‘feel’ is how the rules are made. They’re treading a very dangerous line given how this platform is still in its infancy and we all just migrated from reddit after their owner decided to do the same.
If you lift the hood of Lemmy up too far, I think you’re going to find a lot of the same cockroaches underneath.
Ahh you see this has all been already settled for you, take the case of Twitter.
Calls of violence are not allowed on Twitter! Wow so simple right? What if there was a notorious user who was also a US President and made a call for violence? Well… guess what Twitter clarified those rules by saying:
You’re allowed to call for violence if you’re talking about America’s foreign policy.
That’s why you can say “death to Assad” but you can’t say “death to healthcare CEO”. It’s all propaganda anyway. While there are liberals who truly believe “all lives matter”, they’re few and far between, most liberals use civility as cover for their ideology. That’s why healthcare CEO death is bad, but Assad death is good.
You’re allowed to call for violence if you’re talking about America’s foreign policy.
Cool cool cool. Glad we got that cleared up. Liberty, Whiskey, and Sexy are back on the menu.
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.
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
Probably because they’ve been removed by the mods.
I’ve never seen this before and had to look this up. A fantastic little piece of history, excellently memeified.
Everyone who opposes the assassination of one CEO is glorifying the thousands of murders he committed. It’s one or the other.
Uh…that’s not how it works at all. You should get past that logic in 5th or 6th grade.
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?
But that other company already walked back the policy to not cover anaesthesia for the whole duration of surgeries.
And that’s great but honestly that’s still peanuts if your goal is to have a proper public health care system where no one has to go broke because they’re uninsured when they get sick.
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?
Ukraine is working toward making that happen. They’re much closer to achieving it than they were 2 years ago.
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!
