After reviewing the universal rules, I have two main concerns.

The first is the reliance on Canadian law. I understand that these instances are subject to Canadian law, which makes sense, but I would rather there be explicit rules or values written down, with the preference toward those rules over Canadian law, as laws can change. For example, what would happen if Canada has a MAGA-style wave and removes LGBTQ people from its list of protected classes? I imagine that we would still want to protect such people. Or, perhaps more likely, Canada strengthens its ties with China and regulates certain criticism of China as a result. Canada could also enact laws similar to those of the UK, which classified support of Palestine Action as support for terrorism and outlawed such speech. In summary, I want to make sure that these Lemmy instances protect marginalized groups while also allowing for free discussion and criticism of foreign nations and political groups, regardless of the current sway of Canadian politics and laws.

The second is a more concrete example which reveals an inherent contradiction between universal rules 1 (Violence and Threats) and 2 (Hate and Discrimination). There are currently multiple real-world examples of political groups using bogus victim-hood narratives, astro-turfing, whataboutism, and other means of misinformation to deny or downplay human rights abuses, including genocide. While I am glad to see a rule about misinformation, certain interpretations of universal rules 1 and 2 could shield bad actors from necessary criticism. In other words, should we tolerate the intolerant? Is it OK to say we should punch Nazis? What if I claimed Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza - a fact that many Canadian politicians are unwilling to admit themselves? What about the humans rights abuses in the USA and China? Would it be OK to use these Lemmy instances to stage opposition to such abuses, including sabotage of the encroaching surveillance state? The answers to these questions may seem obvious to some, but I would rather have explicit rules in place than kick the can down the road.

A few discussions:

• "Content that was created with the help of generative AI tools should be labelled." What if you don't know for sure, you're reposting. Can I put "suspected AI?"
• Your Rule 6 in the universal rules is going to be hard to enforce. I like that it's there, but the fediverse is so small right now, that we rely a lot on user reports. I'm not sure how to fix that. I don't think some of the users here know they're even being targeted, and then leave before it's reported.
• Rule 9 is hard for us Americans. Our own government is doing that. Again, we're small, so that one probably isn't a huge issue yet.

I think rule 5 should be amended to allow posting of PII for public figures with publicly available information however disallow any private information (like home address or personal cellhpone) of these public figures.

The current wording would mean you can get banned if you give out information on how to contact your MP (for posts about bad bills for example).

Thank you for organising and sharing your rules and processes transparently. Scanning quickly, there's lots here that must have taken a lot of work. The various hierarchies for users and rules seem sound. The rules themselves line up with what I'd expect and hope for as a user, particularly one based in Canada. I'll check back to see some of the developing sections, like the AI guidelines, once theyre done. Thank you for including a changelog, and a commitment to annual review and updates, and what seems like a commitment to including community feedback.

Based on the Canadian charter? As a native American man, that doesnt fill me with a lot of confidence.

Please keep the rules in the sidebar so people on mobile devices can read them without leaving their client.

Looking forward to diving into this.