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.

  • greencactus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I really like your post and the changes! Obviously it is a very divisive and polarized event. In my opinion, the lines you have drawn help in creating a productive discussion environment. I am very happy to have an admin team who can deal so well with this situation - thank you for your work and this post! I sincerely appreciate it.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months 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.

  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    A bunch of shit and piss from bootlicking crybabies.

    I will gladly move home instances you sycophantic fucks. Maybe your precious billionaires will let you suck their cocks for some of that sweet, sweet capitalist cum.

    Disgusted to have .world as my home instance. Will be switching momentarily.

  • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Everyone who opposes the assassination of one CEO is glorifying the thousands of murders he committed. It’s one or the other.

  • Baron1avAB0rn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months 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.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s also used to tell people they should go do something because “no jury in the world would convict you”. Like when white juries in the American south actually refused to convict white people who murdered black people, no matter how much evidence there was.

      When Jury Nullification is mentioned on it’s own it’s fine. When it’s mentioned in combination with calling for violence, it’s bad. And it should be bad, we’ve seen it used so badly we created the Federal Civil Rights statutes that allow the Feds to effectively step in and prosecute those racially motivated murders in a different state.

      • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The story you tell is bad, but it’s also kind of what democracy is. Being judged by your peers. That white people should be allowed to murder black people with no consequences is what the people decided. The problem in that situation isn’t the system, it’s the people. The system was enforcing the will of the bad people who represented society.

        And how did that situation get better? Heroes broke the law and used violence or the threat of violence to change society. Heroes like John Brown, who killed slavers, and Malcolm X, who armed black people on the streets. Abraham Lincoln went to war with the southern states. People died because of his orders.

        It doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from. Your rights were scrawled in blood.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          John Brown was a hundred years before any of it stopped. He hardly helped stop it. Fight it, sure. Stop it? No. And Malcolm X may have helped Congress see the need but the majority of it stopped when the federal government was able to prosecute people for civil rights violations and force states to let black people onto juries.

          • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            John Brown seized the federal armoury in 1859, two years before the start of the american civil war. The journey to equality for black americans took hundreds of years and it’s still not complete yet.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              But you know what we don’t have anymore? All white juries nullifying prosecutions. Because the federal government will prosecute them for doing that.

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            So, what you’re suggesting is that there is nothing meaningful that any one human being can do in their lifetime and the end of that argument is that nobody should try.

            It’s like people don’t understand that fighting for equality and civil rights and human rights are an ongoing thing. Martin Luther King broke the law. Was arrested several times. Did what he felt was necessary to make a difference. But he didn’t stop racism so his contribution doesn’t matter. He hardly helped stop it.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              The fight can be meaningful, I never said it couldn’t. I said he didn’t stop the jury nullification problem in the south.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Look at the thread we’re in. Now come back and tell with a straight face that John Brown had anything to do with it.

  • somebodysomewhere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Personally tired of hearing about it. I disagree on the morality of this and made an acct on another instance. Can do same with communities on lemmy.world if we could all agree to move to them.

    • Mellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That option was never off the table. It would make it easier for those of us who prefer justice over murder to block the community of those who want society to devolve into chaos and anarchy. Those who call for violence and some half assed revolution. I don’t need you here.

      I’m tired of hearing people espouse their basest thoughts only to come up with murder is justified. It took you two seconds to come up with that? What happens next? When the tribe has devolved to a point where even they could be the target who will be there to say maybe we went too far. Well the line was passed miles ago and you didn’t even realize you crossed it.

      All this has taught me is that we have a severe morality and ethics problem. It probably happened about a generation ago. I wonder what stopped being instilled or taught to cause this devolution. That’s what I’m worried about right now.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Historically we know exactly what happens next. You more than likely wouldn’t be here at all if historically class wars didn’t happen. You either lack the context and understanding to empathize with millions of people who died because this man felt the need to enrich himself and the shareholders of the company at the extreme detriment to the rest of society, or you’re deliberately ignoring facts to suit a personal belief and opinion.

        I have often been told by people who think their politics is more important than my mental health that I don’t have to interact with political posts and I can just ignore them. I’m not going to say that to you because I don’t think it’s fair to you. But keyword blocking on the other hand is a thing and if this detrimentally affects your mental health then you should take the necessary steps to protect it.

        I find it interesting that you seem to think people who think he got a measured response and outcome to the way he lived should leave though.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It’s an interesting combination, too. In very devolved industrial countries like the US, people are both more readily violent and the rich have successfully told the poor that the very poor are a big part of their problem.

      • Serinus@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        When the tribe has devolved to a point where even they could be the target

        Oh, NOW we’re worried about a slippery slope?

        I would have thought that point would be the time a classroom of elementary school students got shot up. (Not that time, the other time.)

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I know people want to celebrate the perish of a bad guy (me included) but if that endangers existance of lemmy.world then I think it’s fair to take this celebration somewhere else.

    On the ehtics pov I’m not quite conviced that celebrating death is entirely unethical. Some people are bad and society is better without them and these Dutch, Finnish and German laws might make sense locally but definitely don’t make much sense in a global context.

  • azuth@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Is your opinion that advocating for jury nullification would constitute some violation of Dutch, Finnish or German law based on legal advice?

  • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Awesome response. I do not hold any grudges against the early over-moderation that took place. It is truly a sensitive subject. However, I feel allowing free speech (within reason) in a situation like this is important for both sides (the Bourgeoisie and all of us poors) as it gives us a chance to vent some pent up steam and it hopefully gives them an insight into how close things are to getting out of control and give them a chance to correct some bad behaviors.