We, the mods of [email protected], are writing because we have alerted the users of our community that we will report their accounts should they explicitly identify that they are under 18 years old in a comment or post shown on Lemmy World to enforce the Lemmy World Terms of Service (ToS). In said post, several users have brought up arguments and hypothetical situations that we would like discussed by the Lemmy World admin team and other mods to get clear guidance on expectations of our moderating actions and help clarify the concerns of the users in our community.
Basically, the main argument we see is concerning the federated organization of Lemmy and the Fediverse in general. The ToS state that:
4.0.2: You are at least 18 years of age and over the regulated minimum age defined by your local law to access Lemmy.World.
4.1: No one under 18 years of age is allowed to use or access the website.
That clearly states that anyone under 18 years of age cannot access any of the site. However, users are arguing that if a user that is registered on another instance is under 18 years old and posts in a community or comments on a post that is originally from Lemmy World, that user is technically not accessing the site directly. Instead, they are interacting with their instance, and that instance interacts with Lemmy World through the Fediverse protocol. That user did not directly interact or access Lemmy World. The information from Lemmy World was forwarded to them, and the information they shared was forwarded to Lemmy World. This brings up some nuances with expectations for moderating in Lemmy World in general.
Are mods expected to report or ban a user of another instance that explicitly identifies themselves as under 18 years old through a post or comment that is federated into the community that we moderate? Another situation that will likely arise is that of a user of another instance making a post on their instance.
If their post is cross-posted to a community we moderate on Lemmy World, are we to delete the cross-post?
Who would be in violation of the ToS because of the cross-post: the original poster or the cross-poster?
Yet another situation that could easily arise revolves around a Lemmy World user engaging with other websites or internet services.
Suppose someone on another website or service strikes a similarity to a user of the actual Lemmy World instance and identifies as under 18 years old, are mods expected to investigate and enforce the policy of reporting and/or banning the user from Lemmy World based on a judgment call? We want to be clear that the purpose of our post is to clarify the expectations that the Lemmy World admin team has of its mods so that we can conscientiously and dependably comply with the policies that are set to help manage the instance.
Mods aren’t detectives. I doubt anyone would expect the mods of a community to dig THAT deep to investigate another user’s posting history, especially not for ALL users in the bigger communities. I mean, you currently have 5.6k subscribers. Even if you’d spend only a single minute checking each account once a day on the off chance that some posts are similar elsewhere, that would amount to 94 hours a day, split between the 4 mods = 23.5 hours each day just checking comments. For each of you.
I’d say, unless the “other account” directly and openly states that Lemmy account XYZ is definitely theirs, and someone else directly reports it to you, I wouldn’t worry about what they might or might not do on other instances. You’re only responsible for your own community, not for the entirety of the Fediverse.
Technically, the crossposter would be the “guilty” part as the original poster has no say in whether or not other people crosspost their stuff elsewhere. They don’t even get notified when this happens, so how would the OP be able to prevent it anyway?
However, the crossposter in question might not be aware about the Lemmy.world code of conduct if they’re subscribed to another instance, or might not know that the post they just crossposted belonged to an u18 user, so you can’t expect malicious intent. I think the best way to handle such a situation would be to notify the crossposter about the situation, explain that the crosspost is technically not allowed, and wait 24 hours[1] or so to give them a chance to remove the post themselves. If that doesn’t happen, delete the crosspost.
The only time I would issue an actual warning or maybe temp ban, is when it happens over and over again with the same user(s). Punishing someone for making an honest mistake is wrong, but if the person was informed about the post not being allowed and they keep doing it anyway out of spite or because they don’t care, then that’s a different story.
They might not have “accessed” the actual instance, but they ARE interacting with the content hosted on it, thus “using” it. But just like in the example above, there might not be any malicious intent involved. They likely just didn’t know better, so I’d say tell them about the situation and politely ask for them to remove the comment(s) and not interact with the community again until they come of age. Immeditaly deleting posts and comments and/or hitting people with the ban hammer when they might not even have realized that they did something wrong in the first place … that only breeds resentment.
Just a drastic example to put it into perspective: If someone isn’t old enough to buy alcohol, and another person buys alcohol FOR them, that doesn’t suddenly make it okay for the underage party to consume it. And if Lemmy.world content isn’t meant to be “consumed” by an underage end user, it should not matter HOW they got the content in the first place. The shop clerk however did nothing wrong as they didn’t sell alcohol to an underage person, so it would not be “your fault” as a mod if your content was taken elsewhere by someone else without your knowledge. You’re not omniscient =P
…but again: polite warning and explanation first, always. Explain instead of punish, because they might not be aware that they even did something wrong. Give them the chance to fix their mistakes first, and only take action if they’re unwilling to do that.
[Edit: fixed some typos and added a footnote]
It can even be longer. Not everyone is online every single day, so I usually just occasionally check whether or not they have been active on the site. No posts or comments since the removal was requested = they’re likely not online and thus unable to react. Especially with such a comparably tame issue like the age restriction, it is not the end of the world if the post/comment stays online for a while ;) The content isn’t harmful, after all. ↩︎
I’m in agreement with most said here. Users of other instances wouldn’t know of our TOS and rules generally. But also, our TOS is for access to “the website” i.e. lemmy.world. Users on other instances are not using this website, technically. They are accessing information originated here. It’s a complicated situation because of the nature of federation.
Personally, I would try to manage LW users specifically when it comes to age restrictions as those are the ones who agreed to our TOS and age requirement. So basically, if a LW user is known to be under 18, take action, and if a user from another instance openly says they are under 18, then take action. Explanation is up to you.
Yes, love this explanation.
And this is most situations in general, not just age issues.
I agree with what both @justlookingfordragon and @canthidium shared and if someone knows a user is under 18 years let us know.
Roger. Thanks everyone!
@[email protected] @[email protected]