Hello World,

following feedback we have received in the last few days, both from users and moderators, we are making some changes to clarify our ToS.

Before we get to the changes, we want to remind everyone that we are not a (US) free speech instance. We are not located in US, which means different laws apply. As written in our ToS, we’re primarily subject to Dutch, Finnish and German laws. Additionally, it is our discretion to further limit discussion that we don’t consider tolerable. There are plenty other websites out there hosted in US and promoting free speech on their platform. You should be aware that even free speech in US does not cover true threats of violence.

Having said that, we have seen a lot of comments removed referring to our ToS, which were not explicitly intended to be covered by our ToS. After discussion with some of our moderators we have determined there to be both an issue with the ambiguity of our ToS to some extent, but also lack of clarity on what we expect from our moderators.

We want to clarify that, when moderators believe certain parts of our ToS do not appropriately cover a specific situation, they are welcome to bring these issues up with our admin team for review, escalating the issue without taking action themselves when in doubt. We also allow for moderator discretion in a lot of cases, as we generally don’t review each individual report or moderator action unless they’re specifically brought to admin attention. This also means that content that may be permitted by ToS can at the same time be violating community rules and therefore result in moderator action. We have added a new section to our ToS to clarify what we expect from moderators.

We are generally aiming to avoid content organizing, glorifying or suggesting to harm people or animals, but we are limiting the scope of our ToS to build the minimum framework inside which we all can have discussions, leaving a broader area for moderators to decide what is and isn’t allowed in the communities they oversee. We trust the moderators judgement and in cases where we see a gross disagreement between moderatos and admins’ criteria we can have a conversation and reach an agreement, as in many cases the decision is case-specific and context matters.

We have previously asked moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification when this was suggested in context of murder or other violent crimes. Following a discussion in our team we want to clarify that we are no longer requesting moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification in the context of violent crimes when the crime in question already happened. We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence, which is violating our terms of service.

As always, if you stumble across content that appears to be violating our site or community rules, please use Lemmys report functionality. Especially when threads are very active, moderators will not be able to go through every single comment for review. Reporting content and providing accurate reasons for reports will help moderators deal with problematic content in a reasonable amount of time.

  • Baron1avAB0rn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Broseph, I can’t have sympathy. The income inequality won’t let me. People aren’t cheering the unaliving necessarily, but the fact that one of these people actually answered for their crimes, in whatever form that took. Because courts weren’t gonna make him.

    • AstroCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      45
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      As somebody who has been browsing the news section at another major social media (you probably know which one), I can assure you they were celebrating what happened to that CEO. it is primarily the reason I just signed up here.

      What happened to the CEO was wrong. Full stop.

          • Aermis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 day ago

            Says who? Why is it legal for a man to have power over the lives of millions and used an AI algorithm to further deny necessary Healthcare to millions and then use the defense of the law book to justify that. Law is what we as a society deemed necessary to preserve the society. Once law was dictated by corporate interests with no incentive to preserve society, not adhere to the needs of anyone in the society, then society will deem the laws no longer apply.

            You’re wrong. You don’t see what he’s saying. Because you’re still abiding by a system designed to prosecute you and protect corporate interests. US has warred against leaders with smaller body counts than many of our CEO’s, with their life ending decisions. Don’t be fooled. They just have extra steps ™ to their mass murder cases. They hide behind the social courtesy of a system that they designed. So get over the propaganda you’ve been taught in public school, unveil the crumbling structure of our legal system, breathe the fresh air and join the people’s outrage against the corporate class who has already deemed you and millions of others expendable, a rounding error, a statistic.