Lemmy.world removes its rules against discrimination (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by HardlightCereal@lemmy.world to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ech@lemm.ee 66 points 1 year ago

5.0.1: Before using the website, remember you will be interacting with actual, real people and communities. Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other groups of people. Every one of our users has a right to browse and interact with the website and all of its contents free of treatment such as harassment, bullying, violation of privacy or threats of violence.

[-] Geert@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes but what about jewish black lesbians? They are cool to harass right? It's not literally explained in the document so it must be!

Edit: /s for @BolexForSoup@kbin.social

[-] Boiglenoight@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

HEAR HERE! (I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE TO USE WHEN SHOUTING THIS EXPRESSION IN SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING)

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Heer heer!

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

hear hear

[+] BolexForSoup@kbin.social -11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not a single mention of discrimination because it doesn’t say anything about religion/race/gender/etc. It needs to specify this to be a rule about discrimination. Even the US federal government - which is the bare minimum - has this spelled out in employment laws and other areas.

[-] ech@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago

While I don't think it would be unwarranted, it's also not specifically necessary. They can interpret that line to mean anything they want. It's a volunteer run, privately hosted reddit clone. It doesn't need to be as intricate as US law (which I not sure why that's "baseline" for anything).

[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It doesn’t need to be as intricate as US law (which I not sure why that’s “baseline” for anything).

IMHO it would be better if it was as intricate as Roman law. Because while the wording might be intricate, all you need to know if something is allowed, disallowed, or required is to simply look at the law.

In the mean time, "esoteric" law systems like common law expect you to look at the precedents. That works in real life due to huge bureaucratic apparatus and recording old cases, but for a simple internet forum you won't get it.

EDIT: my point is that trying to make something "too simple" will bite you back later on, with even more complexity.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Making something too complex will also bite you in the ass.

The difference between starting simple and starting complex is that starting simple provides a path to actually finding the correct level of complexity.

[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Complexity in general is undesirable. But sometimes it's a necessary evil. And sometimes trying to be too simple will have the opposite effect, adding complexity instead of reducing it.

I might be wrong but I believe that it's the case here. One of the lemmy.world admins already confirmed ITT that 5.0.1 will be enforced in a way to cover discrimination; this is great but the letter of the rule should be, IMHO, clearer on this. Perhaps a small tweak like

5.0.1: Before and when using the website, remember you will be interacting with real people and communities, and every one of our users has a right to browse and interact with the website and all of its contents free of treatment such as harassment, bullying, violation of privacy or threats of violence. You are not allowed to use this website to attack other groups of people, based on characteristics such as their sex, sexuality and gender, ethnicity and race, country of origin and residence, religious affiliation or lack of, or other groups that they might belong to.

would be already enough to shut the fuck up of both the alt right and witch hunters.

Just my two cents, mind you. (Note that I've kept "attack" - as you said in another comment [and I agree], it's clearer than "discriminate".)

[-] simple@lemm.ee 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm pretty sure the ToS only exists for legal reasons, don't make a big deal out of this. It doesn't mean the admins won't ban people for discrimination. Nothing suggests their stance has changed.

[-] Geert@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago

It's always the same trolls. Who would read the ToS and say "ok guess racism is back on the table".

[-] quinten@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Lemmy Silver

[-] redballooon@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Then why the change?

[-] simple@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Nothing was changed, it's a new document.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

That is a change

[+] BolexForSoup@kbin.social -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If it’s not a big deal then it shouldn’t be too hard to mention you can’t discriminate against someone’s religion/race/gender/etc.

These things are a big enough deal they need to be removed but suddenly “it’s not a big deal” when people want them back.

[-] simple@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

A) They weren't removed, this is a new document

B) As other comments mention, discrimination and harassment is covered in section 5

C) Consider messaging the admins about it rather than push the alert button and causing needless drama

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Rule 5 covers discrimination.

[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

Here's a link to the terms of service.

Frankly it sounds a lot like pseudo-legalese. IMO the worst of both legalese (that could shield the entity legally) and writing clearly (that could inform users). However it doesn't imply that discrimination is allowed here, and 5.0.1 ("Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other groups of people.") already arguably protects people against discrimination.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

It’s a hell of a lot clearer too. “Discriminate” is more vague than “attack”.

[-] RickRussell_CA@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What would "discrimination" look like in a reddit-like link sharing service?

I'm not even sure what that word would imply in a discussion forum. It usually applies to things like wages, job opportnities, access, etc.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Your name is rick and you are canadian!!!! Downvotedd!!!!!

[-] RickRussell_CA@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

California, actually. Although that's probably worse.

I would proudly stink of back-bacon and maple syrup, if given the opportunity.

[-] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago

Was there any discussion about this change? Or is this it.

[-] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I can't see any history discussing the change before today, but the posts from before today also seem to be more inclusivity-minded than this one. Maybe it's just a huge oversight and they forgor. But it's definitely not a nice look. The new rules also say you're not allowed to report content for things that aren't a violation of the terms of service. So if you report a content for being racist, that's against the rules.

[-] Geert@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

So if you report a content for being racist, that’s against the rules.

If that is what you make of it than you're either playing dumb or you know, not pretending

[-] pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

oh s**t no more lemmy.world?

[-] DieserTypMatthias@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

Aren't you just woke?

[+] Steve@communick.news -18 points 1 year ago

Doesn't discrimination need to be allowed so the site can ban people for things without breaking their own rules?

Banning in one way or annother is kind of the definition of discrimination.

[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Doesn’t discrimination need to be allowed so the site can ban people for things without breaking their own rules? // Banning in one way or annother is kind of the definition of discrimination.

No. It's basically two different meanings associated with the same word:

"to discriminate" as "to sort out", "to make a distinction" - necessary to ban users
"to discriminate" as "to treat users differently based on social or individual prejudice" - what people shouldn't be doing

The first meaning is mostly used formally. The second one is kind of "default" when people talk about discrimination.