•
5.0.1: Before using the website, remember you will be interacting with actual, real people and communities. Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other groups of people. Every one of our users has a right to browse and interact with the website and all of its contents free of treatment such as harassment, bullying, violation of privacy or threats of violence.
Yes but what about jewish black lesbians? They are cool to harass right? It's not literally explained in the document so it must be!
Edit: /s for @BolexForSoup@kbin.social
HEAR HERE! (I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE TO USE WHEN SHOUTING THIS EXPRESSION IN SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING)
Have never read a discrimination clause before? You don’t have to list literally ever combination. This is ignorant at its most charitable interpretation.
See? This is the shit I’m talking about. People here going “it doesn’t matter” yet here you are showing us exactly why it matters.
Not a single mention of discrimination because it doesn’t say anything about religion/race/gender/etc. It needs to specify this to be a rule about discrimination. Even the US federal government - which is the bare minimum - has this spelled out in employment laws and other areas.
•
While I don't think it would be unwarranted, it's also not specifically necessary. They can interpret that line to mean anything they want. It's a volunteer run, privately hosted reddit clone. It doesn't need to be as intricate as US law (which I not sure why that's "baseline" for anything).
"Just trust me bro" is never a good model.
Because maybe the current admins are all great people who will do right. But we don't know if all future admins will be. And if we get a "rules lawyer" coming down on a complaint that some community is being horrifically racist as "Well, it isn't against the rules..."
But also? The world is an increasingly shitty place. Twitter is run by a straight up white supremacist. Having this kind of verbiage goes a long way toward indicating if a place can even possibly be a "safe space" as it were.
But also: If the idea is that we should just trust the admins: Why have any rules at all?
•
Nothing here is written in stone. If shitty people take over, there's absolutely nothing to stop them throwing out the rules as written, or just ignoring them.
But also: If the idea is that we should just trust the admins: Why have any rules at all?
All we have here is trust. These rules are more so the admins proclaiming their intended goals and actions. Again, there's nothing to stop an instance admin from doing whatever they want. Could it be more verbose? Absolutely. But as for the claims that the new rules show any deviousness on the part of the current admins, or that having better written rules will inherently protect anyone? Those don't really hold any merit, imo.
The difference is that if a TOS needs to be changed to support shitty behavior, it changes. That is often a canary in the coal mine as it were and people STILL cite google removing "Do no evil" and so forth. Same with the Unity debacle where a few people noticed things had been rewritten... and nobody listened until it became a massive kerfluffle.
Because yes. Admins can do (and see) whatever they want. Welcome to message boards. And I do think having a written TOS is a good step forward (even if this TOS is probably objectively bad for a lot of reasons). It provides a contract of sorts.
But also: I would very much say that NOT providing provisions for discrimination based on ethnicity/sexuality/gender/religion/whatever is a pretty big red flag almost to the level of "I don't see color". Because yes, it is not in and of itself support for bigotry (even if many will view it as such). It is an indication of not understanding the problems that others are facing and not realizing how important it is to call that out.
Like, there is a reason that "Wheaton's Rule" is not actually something you can run a community on. And this has been demonstrated time and time again over the decades.
It doesn’t need to be as intricate as US law (which I not sure why that’s “baseline” for anything).
IMHO it would be better if it was as intricate as Roman law. Because while the wording might be intricate, all you need to know if something is allowed, disallowed, or required is to simply look at the law.
In the mean time, "esoteric" law systems like common law expect you to look at the precedents. That works in real life due to huge bureaucratic apparatus and recording old cases, but for a simple internet forum you won't get it.
EDIT: my point is that trying to make something "too simple" will bite you back later on, with even more complexity.
Making something too complex will also bite you in the ass.
The difference between starting simple and starting complex is that starting simple provides a path to actually finding the correct level of complexity.
Complexity in general is undesirable. But sometimes it's a necessary evil. And sometimes trying to be too simple will have the opposite effect, adding complexity instead of reducing it.
I might be wrong but I believe that it's the case here. One of the lemmy.world admins already confirmed ITT that 5.0.1 will be enforced in a way to cover discrimination; this is great but the letter of the rule should be, IMHO, clearer on this. Perhaps a small tweak like
5.0.1: Before and when using the website, remember you will be interacting with real people and communities, and every one of our users has a right to browse and interact with the website and all of its contents free of treatment such as harassment, bullying, violation of privacy or threats of violence. You are not allowed to use this website to attack other groups of people, based on characteristics such as their sex, sexuality and gender, ethnicity and race, country of origin and residence, religious affiliation or lack of, or other groups that they might belong to.
would be already enough to shut the fuck up of both the alt right and witch hunters.
Just my two cents, mind you. (Note that I've kept "attack" - as you said in another comment [and I agree], it's clearer than "discriminate".)
The federal government sets the bare minimum protections for people in United States, not in other countries of the world. And internet covers the entire world, not only United States. That's how I see it.
I'm pretty sure the ToS only exists for legal reasons, don't make a big deal out of this. It doesn't mean the admins won't ban people for discrimination. Nothing suggests their stance has changed.
It's always the same trolls. Who would read the ToS and say "ok guess racism is back on the table".
Is your point that we shouldn't have a document that says all people should feel safe on lemmy.world (unless they're attacking others)?
If it’s not a big deal then it shouldn’t be too hard to mention you can’t discriminate against someone’s religion/race/gender/etc.
These things are a big enough deal they need to be removed but suddenly “it’s not a big deal” when people want them back.
A) They weren't removed, this is a new document
B) As other comments mention, discrimination and harassment is covered in section 5
C) Consider messaging the admins about it rather than push the alert button and causing needless drama
So section 5 covers all the same areas of harassment as the previous code of conduct? These are all bannable still on lemmy.world?
Here's a link to the terms of service.
Frankly it sounds a lot like pseudo-legalese. IMO the worst of both legalese (that could shield the entity legally) and writing clearly (that could inform users). However it doesn't imply that discrimination is allowed here, and 5.0.1 ("Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other groups of people.") already arguably protects people against discrimination.
Pretty much. Writing vague nonsense without even using vetted examples as a basis. And then spending more time trolling people than addressing concerns. And this follows on mysteriously wiping out entire mod teams because of a decision that a dark grey area is "illegal" (rather than just "a good way to get sued") while actively not addressing the mods openly discussion said wipings. Or the flip flopping on whether to allow the piracy communities because apparently cranky users beat potential indentured servitude to nintendo.
Gonna be honest. I did not expect to re-live the 00s message board cycle in 2023. And probably need to start looking for a new home instance since we can already see the chuds coming out of the woodwork because they feel empowered.
... just in case we really ARE back in the 00s. Cliffy B. Cliffy B. Cliffy B.
What would "discrimination" look like in a reddit-like link sharing service?
I'm not even sure what that word would imply in a discussion forum. It usually applies to things like wages, job opportnities, access, etc.
California, actually. Although that's probably worse.
I would proudly stink of back-bacon and maple syrup, if given the opportunity.
I can't see any history discussing the change before today, but the posts from before today also seem to be more inclusivity-minded than this one. Maybe it's just a huge oversight and they forgor. But it's definitely not a nice look. The new rules also say you're not allowed to report content for things that aren't a violation of the terms of service. So if you report a content for being racist, that's against the rules.
So if you report a content for being racist, that’s against the rules.
If that is what you make of it than you're either playing dumb or you know, not pretending
Give me a fucking break. You wrote the “black Jewish lesbian” response to me above and then have the stones to accuse someone of playing dumb?
Doesn't discrimination need to be allowed so the site can ban people for things without breaking their own rules?
Banning in one way or annother is kind of the definition of discrimination.
Doesn’t discrimination need to be allowed so the site can ban people for things without breaking their own rules? // Banning in one way or annother is kind of the definition of discrimination.
No. It's basically two different meanings associated with the same word:
- "to discriminate" as "to sort out", "to make a distinction" - necessary to ban users
- "to discriminate" as "to treat users differently based on social or individual prejudice" - what people shouldn't be doing
The first meaning is mostly used formally. The second one is kind of "default" when people talk about discrimination.
Are you the same people that say that by banning fascists you're also becoming fascist?