• BolexForSoup@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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).

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nothing here is written in stone. If shitty people take over, there’s absolutely nothing to stop them throwing out the rules as written, or just ignoring them.

          But also: If the idea is that we should just trust the admins: Why have any rules at all?

          All we have here is trust. These rules are more so the admins proclaiming their intended goals and actions. Again, there’s nothing to stop an instance admin from doing whatever they want. Could it be more verbose? Absolutely. But as for the claims that the new rules show any deviousness on the part of the current admins, or that having better written rules will inherently protect anyone? Those don’t really hold any merit, imo.

      • Lvxferre
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            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”.)

        • Ignacio@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The federal government sets the bare minimum protections for people in United States, not in other countries of the world. And internet covers the entire world, not only United States. That’s how I see it.