478
The Lemmy.World Terms of Service now in effect (legal.lemmy.world)
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by [M] to c/lemmyworld@lemmy.world
281 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hello World!

We've made some changes today, and we'd like to announce that our Code of Conduct is no longer in effect. We now have a new Terms of Service, in effect starting from today(October 19, 2023).

The "LAST REVISION DATE:" on the page also signifies when the page was last edited, and it is updated automatically. Details of specific edits may be viewed by following the "Page History" reference at the bottom of the page. All significant edits will also be announced to our users.

The new Terms of Service can be found at https://legal.lemmy.world/

In this post our community mods and users may express their questions, concerns, requests and issues regarding the Terms of Service, and content moderation in Lemmy.World. We hope to discuss and inform constructively and in good faith.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 40 points 3 years ago (27 children)

trusting you to fairly enforce these rules since they are beyond my willingness to parse. IANAL That said, golden rule always applies. If a suspension or ban is warranted, please require a clear reference to the violation so behavior can be modified in the future. Hate getting banned with no reason or hope of avoiding future violations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 18 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (23 children)

    In this regard, this is pretty damning: https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/554307/Just-wanted-a-warning-Lemmy-World-is-perhaps-worse-than-reddit

    Also, adding having to agree to the Terms of Service when a new user creates an account is good, but does nothing when they create the user from another instance. Lemmy instances that want to implement this might want to consider forcing users coming from other instances to have to agree to general Terms of Service before they can fully participate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 7 points 3 years ago (20 children)

    That thread filled with people who got banned from Lemmy World. You think everyone there is arguing in good faith?

    And some of the reactions to the new ToS have been quite aggressive towards the admin team, even though there is nothing there that changed how people can use our site. Be a decent person and you are welcome, that is the document's purpose.

    We had reactions telling us "fuck off corporate shills" and "suck my balls" and publicly stating they will be a problem and then it's Shocked Pikachu when they get banned and start threads everywhere.

    As you pointed out, people who sign up on Lemmy World have to agree to these terms by typing "I agree" in the sign-up form. We're looking into other options for existing users.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 26 points 3 years ago* (18 children)

    Part of what you are saying may be true, but what the OP is claiming definitely isn't. The Internet Wayback Machine links to the "offending" comment, which they couldn't have manipulated, and the modlog reason on lemmy.world isn't lying. Worse, it was a comment in this thread where "Users may express their questions, concerns, requests and issues regarding the Terms of Service, and content moderation in Lemmy.World. We hope to discuss and inform constructively and in good faith." that got him banned with the claim that he was "disagreeing with the Terms of Service" because of it, and it does not seem that any apology or acknowledgement has been sent.

    Speaking of which, you can go through OP's history in their kbin.social account and find out how he was defending your admin team from the reactions you are complaining about until he had his comment history completely deleted and his account banned on lemmy.world.

    The problem isn't just with existing users, the problem is with new and existing users from other Lemmy instances who aren't going to have the same Terms of Service as you. You are basically going to have to come up with a way to get them to agree with it before they can participate in it, and given that this server seems to be within the EU, that probably also means some additional GDPR concerns when obtaining if you are trying to cover yourselves legally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    That does look like they deleted the person by accident. When people are attacking you, it's hard to see everyone clearly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (6 children)

    Except that according to OP's comments elsewhere, they haven't apologized or communicated directly with them, they haven't answered their ticket, and the entries in the modlog of them doing those actions have been removed. Nothing about that looks like the actions of someone making an accident and owning up to it.

    The reason that was archived hardly makes it seem like an accident:

    Banned @InternetTubes

    reason: disagreeing with the Terms of Service - don't worry your content is gone

    https://web.archive.org/web/20231020022523/https://kbin.social/u/@InternetTubes@lemmy.world

    https://web.archive.org/web/20231019235547/https://lemmy.world/modlog

    OP has also pointed out that you can search for HEISENBERG in a more recent modlog and look back and see that a lot of entries have been removed, https://web.archive.org/web/20231021224842/https://lemmy.world/modlog . This is about the only thing that could seem like an accident, even if the timing does make it seem suspicious.

    There's also another person joining in and making claims that seem to support that they act this way: https://lemmy.ml/comment/5060380

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

    That all does sound like there is a rogue admin, have you contacted Ruud or another one of the admins? This isn't a faceless organization, but a volunteer one. Someone could have came in to do harm, or this is a shitty instance (I'm leaning towards it being an attack). I haven't had anything weird happen, but I've been naive about this before. Ruud could be being naive too. I think we'd love to know how this all turns out, so keep us updated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 3 years ago* (4 children)

    According to OP, they believe it was the same admin who's been writing the ToS because of the last comment and the ban reason although there is no direct evidence of it. They did provide a screenshot of a ticket having been made in mastodon.world that hasn't been answered.

    Just looked at Ruud's account, and he has been inactive for a few weeks now, he may not be available and this may have been done in his absence. I think Antik has been the only one to reply, but saying that a whole instance is untrustworthy and associating to people complaining about how this server has handled itself seems like deflection, specially when OP seems to have defended lemmy.world against those very same criticisms in the past.

    I really just wanted to know, but having no clear answer is an answer to itself. I'll just let this alt become my new main so I don't have to risk the wipeout. It still leaves a lot of possible potential damage, but people are crowding around this instance, whatchagonnado.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

    It's hard for any of us from the outside looking in to make a judgement call. The OP could be sending threatening messages to that admin to cause drama, it could be an honest mistake, a malicious admin or the whole instance is Meta masquerading as a decent instance, we just don't know. There are a lot of serious malicious actors trying to take this instance down, that was obvious a month or so ago. As you say, whatchagonnado but see how it plays out.

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

    OP has provided all information he can and archived to verify its objectivity. It is the admins who are being silent to the multiple number of complaints. It is hardly due to OP that messages have most certainly been removed from the modlog, it is hardly due to OP that the reason for their ban was what it was and not what you are claiming OP to be, or that the admins are largely remaining silent from this discussion.

    When indisputable evidence has been presented, it should be other side to defend themselves, not have speculation provided as if it has the same equal weight. You are basically saying that your speculation regarding the potential bad faith of the OP is the same as all the objective proof that they have provided. It is not.

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

    OP could still be sending threatening messages, have you modded before? The trolls have been out full force here for about 2 weeks now, I'm going to wait and see.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 3 years ago

    Complete speculation, or using said speculation to attempt to argue objective evidence away, really isn't helpful. Taking that approach, anyone could claim that a stoner admin could have acted as one would expect an admin who is stoned to have acted, it's just slinging mud.

    If reddit proved anything, it's that waiting won't force a response if the admin team just wants it to go away. I'm not waiting, and I suspect we will hear little more about this until the next time the base cause of it brings about other issues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -19 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    Your account is brand new, which of the banned users are you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 7 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    What do you mean? Are you suggesting new users from other servers should explicitly be asked that question? It seems like just confirming their freely given consent and acceptance of the Terms of Service would cover it. Otherwise, it just seems like you are trying to derail the intent of this community to fish for excuses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -4 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Just pointing out that you signed up on one instance to complain about the TOS and bans of another one. And that was your first and only action. Pretty sus but I am sure you have no stakes in this

    "Derail the intent of this community", what?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 6 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

    I signed up to use Lemmy. It's federated. I'm also free to sign up in multiple instances as well, just as I'm free to choose to sign up with a new account to discuss something that concerns me, specially when it involves getting entire accounts purged and banned for reasons that don't seem clear and for which there is evidence that it isn't just someone with a beef. Are you implying alts should be illegal?

    I'm sure the admins share the same concerns as you, and will perform and act as they consider appropriate. It is absolutely none of your concern and your suspicions mean nothing, not to mention you seem to have difficulty reading the bar on the side.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 8 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I don't know...

    "It is absolutely none of your concern and your suspicions mean nothing..." is a blatantly false statement. That is a community member, he has as much right to express his thoughts about the conversation as you do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    I suppose in a way you are right, as I can't really speak for anyone else's concern, but his comments are complete speculation that attempt to attack the character and not the argument of the conversation, also derailing it. There's no way for him to prove his claims, and it just acts to imply that someone could have been banned so their thoughts don't matter.

    Imagine someone banned my account for these comments, would they cease to be relevant? Would they cease to be relevant if I brought my thoughts up on an alt? I guess you could question the motive, specially if the conversation was toxic, but have my questions and concerns been toxic? So even if it became applicable, would his doubts be relevant?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Unfortunately, credibility does need to be earned, ideas do not exist in a vacuum, nor should they. This is a necessary adaptation to the quantity of information presented to us in the modern day, every day. This is why pure rhetoric and rationality cannot be used to understand the world around us, it's simply impractical to do that much processing every day.

    Calling a person's credibility into question is thus very valid, as it implies debate is not being entered into in good faith. If you wish this resolved, you will have to earn your right to be listened to by anyone who has any significant amount of experience with online communities. It's just too easy to spout fancy sounding bullshit like some kind of firehose, manufacture evidence in a variety of ways, and just generally waste people's time. It happens all the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    Far enough, but that just goes back to the original problem that the OP ran up against. If they had earned that credibility, if they had built up months of history of comments that proved it, what would it matter if they could be purged instantly? If I linked my main alt, and it got a purge and a ban because someone on the admin team doesn't like me bringing this up, then I would lose all the credibility I had, if I didn't back it up in the Internet Wayback Machine like the kbin.social OP did.

    So I understand why you might question my credibility, but at the same time, you seem to be bolstering the merit of discussing the issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 3 years ago*

    That's true, but the problem goes beyond making a mistake when it also involves how they are handling it. I doubt this would be a problem if they admitted their mistake and if they had apologized and made whatever amends they could. Instead, the user is still banned, https://lemmy.world/u/InternetTubes , and the reason for the ban no longer shows up on the modlog which also seems to be getting increasingly more empty.

    The only thing that they have going for them regarding this incident is allowing this discussion to go on, but having also been on reddit long enough, I know how well that could easily mean just wait to see how it pans out and see if it goes away.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent