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.
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
HEAR HERE! (I DON’T KNOW WHICH ONE TO USE WHEN SHOUTING THIS EXPRESSION IN SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING)
Heer heer!
hear hear
Have never read a discrimination clause before? You don’t have to list literally ever combination. This is ignorant at its most charitable interpretation.
See? This is the shit I’m talking about. People here going “it doesn’t matter” yet here you are showing us exactly why it matters.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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”.)
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
The federal government sets the bare minimum protections for people.
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.
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.
It’s always the same trolls. Who would read the ToS and say “ok guess racism is back on the table”.
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.
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
It’s not covered in section 5. Go read it.
deleted by creator
So section 5 covers all the same areas of harassment as the previous code of conduct? These are all bannable still on lemmy.world?
How would a user of an internet forum exhibit discrimination?
Rule 5 covers discrimination.
deleted by creator
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.
It’s a hell of a lot clearer too. “Discriminate” is more vague than “attack”.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
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.
Your name is rick and you are canadian!!! Downvotedd!!!
California, actually. Although that’s probably worse.
I would proudly stink of back-bacon and maple syrup, if given the opportunity.
Was there any discussion about this change? Or is this it.
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.
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
Give me a fucking break. You wrote the “black Jewish lesbian” response to me above and then have the stones to accuse someone of playing dumb?
My guy needs an /s before he recognizes sarcasm
oh s**t no more lemmy.world?
Aren’t you just woke?
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.
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.
Are you the same people that say that by banning fascists you’re also becoming fascist?
Hey! Fascists are more than just banning things, you know.
Irrelevant?
deleted by creator
