940
It would appear lemmy.world has blocked this community (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
385 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

!piracy@lemmy.ml has also been blocked from lemmy.world.

edit:

Lemmy.world has released an official response.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Yeah, that was a dumb reason, I agree. But I also think it was inevitable with .world being the biggest instance. They're the first place in Lemmy any corporation will go to if they wanna sue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I also just thought that, given how thoroughly downvoted that post and all its OP's comments were, it makes the Admins of Lemmy.world look like they've actively gone against popular opinion. Psychologically, mobs tend to dislike that appearance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    That's true. The reasons given were unsatisfyingly vague.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Like, I think people are upset about blocking the piracy communities, sure, but I think that the real issue is that it feels like everyone is just vibing, doing their thing on their lemmy instances, then this troll comes in all fake concerned about breaking rules, gets utterly piled on naturally, only for the admins in question to come in and "side" with the "loser" in people's eyes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Yeah, I agree with that. It's not the blocking that's such an issue, it's how they came to decide to do it. Definitely wasn't handled well. I wonder if the (even more) downtime they've been having recently is a result of more people being pissed about this move piling on to the DDOS attacks?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    If they had decided to do this a week earlier I doubt it would be this controversial.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Why's that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    I mentioned earlier or elsewhere on this thread that right now, the narrative that I'm aware of is as follows:

    Lemmy.world users: just vibing, doing their thing

    Concern troll: comes in with a freshly created account to pearl-clutch about scary illegal things

    Lemmy.world users: hahaha look at this loser downvotes them to oblivion, resumes vibing

    Lemmy.world Admins: Piracy?! OMG that's ILLEGAL, thank goodness someone pointed this out to us

    If they had an existing stance on piracy, they should have been already enforcing it. Then it wouldn't look like they were successfully spurred into action by a bad-faith actor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    That narrative appears to be correct, although at the end I think it may have been more like "You know, now that this asshole mentions it, maybe we shouldn't host stuff from these piracy communities as Lemmy's largest instance. That might create problems for us down the road."

    They definitely should have been more transparent about why they chose to do it at this particular time.

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

    “You know, now that this asshole mentions it, maybe we shouldn’t host stuff from these piracy communities as Lemmy’s largest instance. That might create problems for us down the road.”

    I'm almost certain that's what actually went down, but I'm explicitly referring to the issue of people's perception.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    There's nothing to sue? They could go after an instance owner, sure, but I'm reasonably sure that there's still Section 230 safe harbor protections for "service providers", which to my knowledge could easily be the owner/admin of a fediverse instance. Perhaps it'll need to be litigated in the courts, which is unfortunate for whoever gets stuck being the trailblazer.

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

    Each instance owner is running these instances themselves, presumably out of the home, for free.

    They could go after an instance owner, sure, but

    There's no "but". They could fight a lawsuit, sure, but that's time consuming and expensive, and why bother? The piracy isn't coming from their instance, why should they have to fight a lawsuit for it? Piracy has its own instance, nothing has been defederated, they're just not hosting the content on their server to save themselves the hassle down the road. I can't imagine they'll be the only one.

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

    Sure, but doesn't it suck that it doesn't matter what the law says? Do you think it'll ever change if everyone rolls over and isolates undesirable communities (think beyond piracy to other things like adult content, or content from marginalised groups)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    They won't really have to fight a lawsuit because it would just be thrown out if a company tried to file one.

    At worst they'd just get DMCA take down requests.

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

    Lawsuits don't generally just throw themselves out. You have to pay a lawyer to show up and ask the judge to throw out the lawsuit on account of the fact that you don't host the thing, or whatever the reason is.

    Judges don't go out and do research; if one side's lawyer says Whirlybird runs The Pirate Bay out of their kitchen and the other side's lawyer isn't there, then the court is going to proceed as though that is at least plausible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You have to pay a lawyer to show up and ask the judge to throw out the lawsuit on account of the fact that you don’t host the thing, or whatever the reason is.

    You don't have to pay a lawyer, you can do it yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •