Hello everyone,

Following the recent discussions on [email protected] and [email protected] , it seems that people realize that Lemmy.world is subject to European laws, and not the US ones.

This is another event where US citizens seem to be looking for an instance that would adhere to their “legal culture”, the previous one being the US elections, where the topic was discussed everywhere, before getting channeled into [email protected]

I don’t know anything about Dutch or Finnish laws, but I’ve seen many recent articles about people arrested in Germany for their social media posts that were considered hateful or violent (which is frankly a culture shock to me as an American), so I can see why some of the posts on Lemmy in the past week would be concerning.

https://lemmy.world/comment/13870047

So, the question is: could Discuss.online become that instance? And host US-focused communities like “AskUSA”, “USPolitics”, “USFinance”, this kind of things?

I am mostly asking because there’s no secret that the DO admins aren’t the biggest Lemmy fans, so would you guys be okay if your instance would get promoted, potentially causing an influx of users and communities, some requiring moderation?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    22 days ago

    Also, IANAL and neither is @[email protected]. We are not about to say this instance allows you to comply with all legal obligations for your geographical location in the world - that’s up to you as an individual.

    • Blaze (he/him)
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 days ago

      On that specific topic, what is your stance on this decision by the LW admins?

      https://discuss.online/post/14139596

      I saw a lot of US citizens in the comments surprised as the differences on laws about “free speech” between the US and Europe (see example in the OP), what would be DO’s stance on this matter?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 days ago

        what is your stance on this decision by the LW admins

        I don’t have one. LW and DO are very different in size (number of users, number of communities, AND traffic). I also won’t get drawn into a debate about how one instance chooses to govern vs how we do (not saying that’s what you were doing, just saying this is my only reply on the topic)

        • Blaze (he/him)
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 days ago

          Let’s maybe clarify my question: is it allowed to discuss jury nullification on DO, and if yes, are there conditions to do so?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            22 days ago

            That’s a fairly broad and loaded question. We tend to defer to moderators for taking actions in the various communities. The question you’ve asked here has no context to it. It’s like asking if it’s ok to talk about getting drunk. Yes, you can talk about getting drunk. Can you talk about encouraging people to get drunk and then go drive a car? What about drinking to the point of alcohol poisoning? What about encouraging people to get drunk in a MADD community? All of these have different context to them and you can obviously see where in at least some of them you’d likely find yourself with a warning or being banned from the community (and in one, there’s potential your own mother might call you out). I don’t think it’s possible to list out all of the possible scenarios a particular topic is allowed to be discussed. So my answer is, read the code of conduct of this server AND the one of the community you are posting in (paying special attention to the sections about harassment along with the definition of harassment), then use common sense about whether a particular topic is allowed.

            • Mellow
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Some people get the nuance and abide. Some people get the nuance and choose to troll. Some people really do not get it due to an inability to understand social concepts. ‘Mental reasons’. The latter cannot be expected to possess common sense.