this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
93 points (84.4% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
940 readers
151 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Posting Guidelines
All posts should follow this basic structure:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm really not sure how the TOS apply given it opens with:
Sag wasn't accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself. This would be like an email provider blocking a particular address from another service because the user of that address doesn't comply with a part of their TOS.
Fully agree.
CLM/CLA.
@[email protected] While the email analogy works well, activityPub is technically an api.
It's a protocol, which I suppose you could argue is an API though that'd be a very liberal definition of API.
@[email protected] As per the spec:
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
Interesting. I've always considered an API a way to control some other software, while a protocol is about different software communicating. IDK, I just don't consider APub's S2S an API. Don't know if that'd hold up in court, but that's what I think.
He posted on "[email protected]"
And I disagree that that counts as making use of the service. Lemmy also sends Webmentions, if someone with a world account posts a blog post from someone and world then sends a Webmention to that blog, does lemmy.world's TOS apply to the blogger? TOS applying over distributed systems is frankly impracticable.
... what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the service's comms?
Is it impossible to make use of the service unless you're a user signed up on the service?
If so, should it be regarded that admins have no authority to bar any user from another instance from the admin's instance?
They're not making use of the service, though. That's a misunderstanding. They're making use of their home servers copy of the other servers community. The user isn't directly using the remote service.
It'd be like having two email companies, one only allowing over 18s to have an account. You wouldn't say you're making use of the other email service if you send an email to them. You're not beholden to their ToS or CoC. Same applies here imo.
What happens when a user posts to that comm?
Does that user's post remain only on their home server's copy of the comm, or does it get federated to the comm they posted to?
That's irrelevant. The post wasn't made via lemmy.zip. we have a copy of the post but the user didn't interact at all with our website or our server. Their server did, not the user. Again, email. If I have an Outlook account and send an email to a Gmail account, I'm not suddenly subject to the Gmail ToS.
Otherwise I'd set up my own email and say anyone that emailed me had to pay me a million bananas as part of my ToS.
Fucking what.
If I write a poem and have someone slap it on the local bulletin board for me, have I not interacted with the bulletin board?
Furthermore, elsewhere you mention interacting as not being accessing (specifically mentioning that 'interacting' only has the CoC applied), but here you claim a lack of interaction as reason for non-enforcement of the ToS.
Bruh, that's literally how it works. Why do you think email accounts from other services can be banned from sending to email services? Gmail can (and literally does) run a blocklist, however ineffective, of email accounts from other email services for violating their ToS.
I honestly don't know what you're on about at this point.
You're confusing a code of conduct which is applied to everyone with a terms of service, which i can only apply to people I offer a service to. I don't hold your data, I can't delete your account or prevent you from accessing your home server. I am not providing you a service in any way. It's really that simple.
Your email thing is wrong btw. Emails can be banned (conduct) by another server, but the account can't be deleted by the other server (service). You're confusing the two.
Like hosting their content?
Content like text posts?
Content that goes and is hosted on your servers when a user is federated and not banned from your instance?
See above
How does any of that preclude providing a service?
... okay? .world hasn't 'deleted' the account in question? So either you're very confused about what has happened here, or your attempt at reconciling the email metaphor with your position has proved my point.
Let me go over this again for you.
When you joined lemmy.world, you agreed to their ToS. I have not joined lemmy.world, therefore their ToS does not apply to me. They owe me nothing, and cannot delete my account nor any of my users from lemmy.zip. they can ban my users from lemmy.world, remove their posts etc, but they're only doing that to their copies of the posts. The original copies are on lemmy.zip and lemmy.worlds actions do not affect any other instances that has a copy of the lemmy.zip original.
Therefore they do not provide my users with a service. If lemmy.world shut down tomorrow, lemmy.zip users would still have service while lemmy.world users would not.
Similarly a website i have never been to might have a ToS, but I have not agreed to that ToS, therefore it cannot apply to me. Said website is not providing me a service.
So we've established who is providing who a service in this scenario, which is lemm.ee providing a service to their user. That user isn't using lemmy.world, therefore isn't receiving a service and isn't beholden to their ToS.
Lemmy.world have banned that user from their website because the user is saying their under 18. But they claim to have done this because in their ToS they say they don't provide a service to under 18s. But that user has not agreed to the ToS.
While lemmy.world is entitled to do whatever they want imo, it's their website, to say it's because of their ToS is incorrectly applying it. They aren't providing a service to the user. Lemm.ee is.
Again, they can do whatever they want, it's their website, but its not how it applies to lemmy.zip. If I was to enact that policy, it would be under the code of conduct as that is what is applied to moderation of remote instances.
Except if you access Lemmy.world, as the ToS point out.
... okay? How is any of that relevant?
This is like saying "I only made you a poster; I didn't suck your dick or do your taxes, so I didn't provide you a service."
You... really need to talk with a lawyer, man. I know Lemmy admins are amateurs, but this is insane.
At what point did the user "access" lemmy.world? Did their device connect to lemmy.world at any point during them making their posts? No. It did not. That's not how federation works.
It's relevant because it shows that lemmy.world has no ownership or control over the original, which is where the barrier for a service would be. I'm not sure how i can make that any clearer.
Again, I have no idea what you're on about with the dick sucking. Saying I have no idea of the law while spouting totally irrelevant arguments is a touch disingenuous.
Why is 'their device' the magic piece of the puzzle for you? If you use a proxy, are you free from all ToS?
They submitted content to Lemmy.world. Fuck's sake.
You can't make it any clearer. Your position is clear. It's also nonsensical.
"Giving examples of services you haven't provided does not preclude what you have provided from being a service as well."
Federation isn't a proxy. You're conflating two different things here. If you use a proxy to access a website, you yourself have still accessed that website.
If I access a lemmy community on a remote server, I am not accessing that remote community directly, I am still on my home instance, accessing a local copy. For example, I am still subscribed to [email protected]. I could go create a post there. But guess what. Feddit.de doesn't exist anymore. The only place that post will go is lemmy.zip because feddit.de is not there to federate it out. Is feddit.de suddenly providing me a service? No! It doesn't exist anymore! I am interacting with lemmy.zips local copy of that community.
It's exactly the same for a live instance. I am not submitting anything directly to the other instance. Instead I am submitting it to my home server, which is letting the remote server know about it. The user has at no point interacted with, accessed, shared any information with, or directly in any way had anything to do with the remote server.
That is a simple fact about how federation works. Can you tell me at what point that user has interacted with lemmy.world's website?
You're literally just describing submitting content by proxy. Like, it cannot get any simpler. The only way this would not be submitting content by proxy would be if the home server you were submitting to had no connection to .world whatsoever, and the transfer of content to .world was done without the posting user's knowledge.
The moment they submitted content to a comm whose instance is Lemmy.world. "It went through their home instance first" is literally arguing that submitting content by proxy excuses one from ToS, which...
Fuck man, really, consult a lawyer. Or articles on Mastodon legal issues for instance hosts.
I've let you drag me off track, that's my own fault. I actually kind of get your point about a proxy service, but we're obviously both looking at this in different ways. In your way, that would automatically mean that every post you make, even locally on lemmy.world, as it is sent to every single server that lemmy.world federates with, makes you subject to every single ToS for those servers. That's just not true though. That's not how it works.
Importantly, back to the key point, the ToS for lemmy.world say:
They are not using nor are they accessing the "website". Is their message being sent between servers? Sure, that's federation. Did the user use or access the website? No.
If that's the line lemmy.world wants to take, they need to update their ToS to reflect that federated users are also subject to that rule and it applies to federated traffic. At least they'd have a leg to stand on then.
As it stands, they've incorrectly interpreted their own ToS. Again, this is analogous to email. Sending an email does not automatically make you subject to an agreement with the receiving company, with a document you've not had sight of. They can still moderate that email as they see fit, but the receiving party isn't providing a service.
Anyway I've said all there is to say. I'm sure we'll continue to disagree.
Using lemmy.word to access content. Using https://feddit.uk/post/25339637 to view the content is making use of feddit.uk's services, using https://lemmy.world/post/26548121 is making use of lemmy.world's services. Would using an archive to access a lemmy.world post be making use of the service?
I wouldn't say so, even going to lemmy.world without an account would be making use of the service in my mind.
No? Community spaces can still have rules that govern themselves (that's why sidebars federate), it's just that terms of service are for people making use of the service.
Can you post to Lemmy.world using an archive?
If not, the question seems of dubious relevance.
But going to Lemmy.world with an account isn't making use of the service, so long as it's not a .world account?
But if no user from another instance is ever using any of the instances they post to, save for their own, how can an admin have the right to ban them?
Federation between instances is like an archive in a state of flux. You can still access feddit.de content despite the service being down.
They didn't go to lemmy.world with an account? They went to https://lemm.ee/c/[email protected] with a lemm.ee account. For my comment to reach you, it has to go through Cloudfair as lemmy.world uses them for DDoS protection. Am I subject to Cloudfair's TOS?
It's perfectly within lemmy.world's remit to ban a user for whatever reasons they feel like, I just don't think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.
You aren't answering the question about posting content.
Okay, well, they can still go there, it's just that their content no longer federates to lemmy.world. I guess everyone should be happy?
That's not even close to equivalent. If the ToS for dbzer0 included, say, something ridiculous, like "Don't use the letter S", and you used the letter S, would you posting here be a violation of the ToS, or not? Regardless of whether you think the ToS is reasonable.
If ToS aren't going to be enforced, you may as well not have them.
IDK, its kinda like lemm.ee making the post on behalf of him.
It won't federate to anyone, it's the Group actor that forwards content to subscribers.
I think it is actually. If posting to lemmy.world comm, who then forwards that content to comm subs, makes me a user of lemmy.world's service, then I don't see how I wouldn't be a user of Cloudfair's services in that case. I've still technically initiated an interaction with Cloudfair servers, even if indirectly.
Well no, I'm not a dbzer0 user so I don't think I'm subject to their TOS. If it was in the comm or instance rules, then I'd be violating those, but TOS is for users of the service.
Where are you getting the idea that I'm saying TOS shouldn't be enforced? I'm not saying that, I'm disputing who it applies to.
Okay. So again, what's the problem? Everyone should be happy.
Because Cloudflare's whole deal is that they provide a service to sites, not users.
Humor me for a moment - if you go to a website, directly, do you have to abide by their terms of service?
You said, and I quote:
No one on lemmy.world will see anything Sag posts, ~ 1/3 of all Lemmy users. Not the end of the world, but it can be demotivating.
No, a TOS is a contract, you have to agree to it to be subject to it.
Remote user, i.e. someone who's account isn't on lemmy.world. Local accounts on lemmy.world should still be subject to the TOS.
The problem remains that the second lemmy.world allows content created by someone underage to federate onto their server, they probably have some legal responsibility regarding that data. And if there is personal information in there, it gets tricky pretty fast in some jurisdictions.
LW don't want legal problems, that's literally all there is to this.
Whether LW can enforce their ToS on remote users is a different question, and even if the answer to that is "no" then they could still include that clause in every single LW community's rules.
If they do, we're going to see a wave of communities migration away from LW
https://lemmy.world/comment/15592014
Maybe [email protected] could become an alternative
4.0: By agreeing to this section of the document, you accept that:
4.0.0: You may only use Lemmy.zip if you can clearly understand and actively comply with the terms laid out on this page.
4.0.1: You have not previously been permanently banned from the website.
4.0.2: You are at least 18 years of age and over the regulated minimum age defined by your local law to access Lemmy.zip.
Ah, thanks
Just to make sure, @[email protected] , would you have instance banned that user in a similar situation?
Not if they're a federated user. They're not my user to worry about. Even if they say they're not 18 it doesn't apply imo, they're not interacting directly with lemmy.zip.
You have to agree that you're over 18 to use lemmy.zip directly as per ToS
Great, thanks!
Does posting to Lemmy.zip not count as accessing?
Just replied to another of your comments, but in summary no. They're not one of my users and I don't hold any data on them nor do they access lemmy.zip directly.
This here is the relevant question imo. Could the federation put relevant remote users' data onto your server? Well, not any user-specific info like the mail adress they signed up with etc. But could a judge rule some specific public post to be relevant personal data? I am not sure.
Its only info they provide to be shown publicly.
Then the ToS don't apply to anyone except your own users? Those who are signed up on your instance, I mean?
No, anyone that isn't having a service from lemmy.zip isn't beholden to our ToS. Our CoC on the other hand we do enforce as part of the site rules when interacting with lemmy.zip communities.