96
LW admins instance-ban a Lemm.ee user for being underage (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
230 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39616364?scrollToComments=true

https://lemmy.world/u/sag@lemm.ee

https://lemmy.world/modlog/?userId=1957570

Underage, you will be unbanned when you turn 18 (happy birthday in advance)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 2 years ago (45 children)

I'm really not sure how the TOS apply given it opens with:

This Terms of Service applies to your access to and active use of https://lemmy.world/, it's API's and sub-domain services (ex alt GUIs)(we, us, our the website, Lemmy.World, or LW) as well as all other properties and services associated with Lemmy.World.

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 45 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    @flamingos@feddit.uk While the email analogy works well, activityPub is technically an api.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's a protocol, which I suppose you could argue is an API though that'd be a very liberal definition of API.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    @flamingos@feddit.uk As per the spec:

    The ActivityPub protocol is a decentralized social networking protocol based upon the [ActivityStreams] 2.0 data format. It provides a client to server API for creating, updating and deleting content, as well as a federated server to server API for delivering notifications and content.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (39 children)

    Sag wasn’t accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself.

    He posted on "Fediverse@lemmy.world"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (26 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (25 children)

    And I disagree that that counts as making use of the service.

    ... 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    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.

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] -13 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    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.

    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?

    I don’t hold your data,

    See above

    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.

    How does any of that preclude providing a service?

    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.

    ... 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    When you joined lemmy.world, you agreed to their ToS. I have not joined lemmy.world, therefore their ToS does not apply to me.

    Except if you access Lemmy.world, as the ToS point out.

    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.

    ... okay? How is any of that relevant?

    Therefore they do not provide my users with a service.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    You can't make it any clearer. Your position is clear. It's also nonsensical.

    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.

    "Giving examples of services you haven't provided does not preclude what you have provided from being a service as well."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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 boardgames@feddit.de. 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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 boardgames@feddit.de. 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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    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:

    No one under 18 years of age or under the regulated minimum age defined by your local law (whichever is higher), is allowed to use or access the website.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    … what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the service’s comms?

    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?

    Is it impossible to make use of the service unless you’re a user signed up on 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.

    If so, should it be regarded that admins have no authority to bar any user from another instance from the admin’s instance?

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -16 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    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?

    Can you post to Lemmy.world using an archive?

    If not, the question seems of dubious relevance.

    I wouldn’t say so, even going to lemmy.world without an account would be making use of the service in my mind.

    But going to Lemmy.world with an account isn't making use of the service, so long as it's not a .world account?

    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.

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Can you post to Lemmy.world using an archive?

    If not, the question seems of dubious relevance.

    Federation between instances is like an archive in a state of flux. You can still access feddit.de content despite the service being down.

    But going to Lemmy.world with an account isn’t making use of the service, so long as it’s not a .world account?

    They didn't go to lemmy.world with an account? They went to https://lemm.ee/c/fediverse@lemmy.world 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?

    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?

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Federation between instances is like an archive in a state of flux. You can still access feddit.de content despite the service being down.

    You aren't answering the question about posting content.

    They didn’t go to lemmy.world with an account? They went to https://lemm.ee/c/fediverse@lemmy.world with a lemm.ee account.

    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?

    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?

    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.

    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.

    If ToS aren't going to be enforced, you may as well not have them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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?

    It won't federate to anyone, it's the Group actor that forwards content to subscribers.

    That’s not even close to equivalent.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    If ToS aren’t going to be enforced, you may as well not have them.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -13 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It won’t federate to anyone, it’s the Group actor that forwards content to subscribers.

    Okay. So again, what's the problem? Everyone should be happy.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    You said, and I quote:

    I just don’t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Okay. So again, what’s the problem? Everyone should be happy.

    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.

    Humor me for a moment - if you go to a website, directly, do you have to abide by their terms of service?

    No, a TOS is a contract, you have to agree to it to be subject to it.

    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.

    You said, and I quote:

    I just don’t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 9 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Maybe !fediverse@lemmy.zip could become an alternative

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago* (10 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 9 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Just to make sure, @Demigodrick@lemmy.zip , would you have instance banned that user in a similar situation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    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.

    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.

    Does posting to Lemmy.zip not count as accessing?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    and I don't hold any data on them

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

    Then the ToS don't apply to anyone except your own users? Those who are signed up on your instance, I mean?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent