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.

  • UmeU@lemmy.world
    0·
    20 hours ago

    So discussion of jury nullification is ok as a general topic. If someone mentions JN in the context of a crime that has not yet been committed then that’s not ok. If the crime has already been committed then that’s ok. If the crime is not violent in nature then we can discuss JN, and if we are just having a general conversation about JN that’s ok too.

    Specifically, the concern is that talking about JN in the context of some hypothetical violent crime that has not yet been committed could be interpreted as advocating for violence.

    This sounds pretty stupid so far, but my question is then, why wrap the ToS around specifically jury nullification? Why not just reiterate the ‘no advocating for violence’ policy.

    If someone is advocating for violence, then adding on some point about jury nullification is irrelevant, they are already breaking the rule.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 day ago

    Reddit was the free speech instance all along? Honestly, with the mods clarifying this I’m asking myself - why the fuck am I on Lemmy again?

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 days ago

    This seems like a double standard: Should any defense of the US healthcare system also be banned because it barbarically leads patients to die waiting for care in an intentional way?

  • sumguyonline@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 days ago

    There is genuinely only 1 thing that matters. People are desperate for change, while Democrats are viciously protecting the status quo, and Republicans are actively making it worse, and enriching themselves. Healthcare, inflation, over charging for milk, literally everything down to the fact they can’t even time stop lights well enough to curb traffic jams so cars break down faster and you pay more to fix it. I do not envy your position being forced to exist by their laws. The day is coming when sides will be required to be chosen. Probably by them. How many ip’s have you already turned over? Keep this in mind. They are the ones that get eaten, no matter how powerful they may posture to be now. They are weak without the people they are enslaving, and the people they need to maintain control are starting to starve.

  • Jamablaya@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 days ago

    “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.” Ok that is utter bullshit regardless of country, and I’m no American saying that. You though, whoever wrote that, have completely revealed yourself as an utter statist monkey begging to be dominated

  • kosanovskiy@lemmy.world
    0·
    4 days ago

    Lol we left reddit for this? Now this is quite an unexpected nullification of jury duties of internet mods. I reject your reality and inject my own ya buncha bozos.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    4 days ago

    Woah, I get not allowing advocating for violence, but restricting people from discussing the topic of jury nullification is pretty messed up regardless of how you feel about the killing.