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.

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    It’s still unethical to bar speech that you don’t agree with on a public platform when that speech is realavent to the topic in the post/group unless that content is illegal or calling for violence, etc. I almost banned someone from my sub based on what they said in another and realized that it would be an abuse of power and that person was entitled to their opinion outside of the sub that I moderate.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      It’s still unethical to bar speech that you don’t agree with

      Sure, but not if that speech is incitement to violence. Then it’s a legal responsibility to shut it down.

      • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        4 days ago

        No, there’s no legal responsibility to shut down violent speech in any country, including the Netherlands. If there was, then speaking in support of capitalism would be illegal. If there’s a law on the books that says it prohibits violent speech, it’s not enforced consistently.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Sure Dragonfucker.

          Netherlands Criminal Code

          Part V. Serious Offences against Public Order

          Section 131

          1. Any person who in public, either verbally or in writing or through images, incites another or others to commit any criminal offence or act of violence against the authorities, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine of the fourth category.

          Thank you for your detailed legal analysis.

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Try Germany:

          §111 (1) StGB:

          Anyone who publicly, in a meeting or by disseminating content (Section 11 (3)) incites an unlawful act shall be punished as an instigator (Section 26).

          §130 StGB:

          (1) Anyone who, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace,

          1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against parts of the population or against an individual because of his membership of a designated group or part of the population, or incites violence or arbitrary measures, or
          2. attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously denigrating or defaming a designated group, parts of the population or an individual because of their membership of a designated group or part of the population, shall be liable to a custodial sentence of three months to five years.

          (2) A custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty shall be imposed on anyone who

          1. disseminates or makes available to the public content (Section 11 (3)) or offers, provides or makes available to a person under the age of eighteen content (Section 11 (3)) that a) incites hatred against a group referred to in paragraph 1 number 1, against sections of the population or against an individual because of his or her membership of a group referred to in paragraph 1 number 1 or of a section of the population, b) incites violence or arbitrary measures against persons or groups of persons referred to in letter a), or c) violates the human dignity of persons or groups of persons referred to in letter a) by insulting, maliciously denigrating or defaming them, or
          2. produces, obtains, supplies, keeps in stock, offers, advertises or undertakes to import or export content referred to in number 1 letters a to c (§ 11 paragraph 3) in order to use it in the sense of number 1 or to enable another person to make such use of it.

          I’m fairly certain CEOs could fall under the “designated group” label but I’m not a lawyer. If that is the case, lemmy.world can be held accountable for the spread of content promoting their death.

          • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            CEOs aren’t a designated group, they’re a voluntary group. And 111 only prohibits advocating unlawful violence. It’s perfectly legal in Germany to say that criminals should be locked up. Imprisonment is a violent act, and it’s completely legal to advocate it. And criminals, just like CEOs, are not a designated group.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      While you and I may give a shit about ethics you can’t expect everyone to hold themselves to the same standards unless you want your heart broken every day for the rest of your life.