top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 93 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Eh, kinda half and half. Kids these days seem to forget rule #1 of the internet: if you're under 18 never admit it anywhere, anytime, for any reason.

Hell, don't even admit you made your account when you were underage, but aren't now. I've seen regular forums and MMORPGs ban people who admitted they were underage at the time they made the account, but not anymore

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 46 points 2 years ago (39 children)

    PTB. This is unreasonable. Also trying to prevent teenagers from accessing the internet is just going to lead to all teenagers just lying about their age. It's not going to stop it. It's just going to mean they can't discuss their actual opinions and issues honestly. It would also reinforce the need to lie to be part of culture, which is just not healthy.

  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • load more comments (39 replies)
    [+] 43 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)
    load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 36 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Aw, they actually did the ban. That's unfortunate.

    On one hand, yes, legal liability and all that, but on the other hand half the site is copyright violations. The law only matters sometimes. I say this as someone who has hosted web communities myself, there's no reason to be banning for something like age on these instances, especially when we're talking 16 and not 12. It's unenforceable and trivial enough that there's no legal pressure to do so.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 32 points 2 years ago (21 children)

    That is a kind of shitty response from World and seems a little condescending to me, but tone is difficult. You are welcome here and I would rather you stay and interact with the rest of us than leave the fediverse. Your voice matters and I didn't have the same outlets when I was your age.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • load more comments (21 replies)
    [–] 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    PTB, this seems really like they're overstepping their bounds, @Demigodrick@lemmy.zip has clarified the matter.

    Unfortunately this isn't the first time Lemmy.world has done something like this using "legal" as an excuse, and probably won't be the last time. They're too big so they'll never get defederated or penalized by any server wishing to stay even remotely relevant so nothing is likely to change.

  • source
  • [+] 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (13 children)
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?

    That's the whole point, they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children. People are going to argue otherwise but as a trans person myself I've seen this and you're not fooling anyone with your lame excuses about protecting kids. People especially those who are vulnerable need support networks, do you know how many trans kids kill themselves because they can't get the support they need and live with abusive and controlling parents. Don't tell me it's to protect kids, I'm not stupid enough to buy that lie and you're not stupid enough to think I'd buy it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • load more comments (45 replies)
    [–] 24 points 2 years ago (28 children)

    Hey, I’m the one that decided to ban this user. I understand the frustration, but it is very much in the TOS of lemmy.world and has been for a long time.

    We are having an internal discussion to see if there’s room to lower the age to 16 and if we can make exceptions for federated users.

    I hope you see that this really isn’t meant as a powertrip, and we are just trying to protect the Lemmy.world site.

    Sorry if I do not respond to comments quickly, it’s late in my timezone.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • load more comments (17 replies)
    [–] 22 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Yeah, it seems a little odd to do a full ban for anyone under 18. Do they feel that all communities on there are not appropriate for minors?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] [S] 20 points 2 years ago

    @sag@lemm.ee FYI since I don't think you've seen the new comments on your initial post

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    @Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com Is it the responsibility of gmail to make sure that people on other mail services don't break their TOS?

    Isn't that the whole point of email being federated?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›