There’s a difference between not mourning a piece of shit and asking for the murder of his peers. The hypocrisy of oligarch-run media (social and traditional) is that they stop having an issue with murder if there’s an Excel spreadsheet between the instigator and the victim.
Because this instance (and all other instances) physically reside in countries with content laws. If we don’t follow those laws, we can be shut down, and the admin/owners that reside in those countries could face legal consequences.
Yeah, it’s a pity that the laws appear to be protecting those the best, who are responsible for the most suffering - after all those have the power to get those laws written.
But that’s the thing: there’s a difference between ‘legal’ and ‘legitimate/true’ behaviour.
While I understand that lemmy instances (et al) have to adhere to legal behaviour, I hope that people adhere to legitimate/true behaviour.
Most people don’t just randomly stumble into legitimate/true behavior. We’re apes, we see something and then do. If it all gets moderated away, the chance for legitimate/true behavior drops dramatically.
I very much hope that action is the outcome of thorough consideration, although oftentimes I have doubts about that.
And still I think we have more up our sleeves than ‘monkey see, monkey do’ schemes.
Nope. I remove comments that say “this guy needs the Luigi treatment” or things to that effect.
The guy is innocent until proven guilty. Using his name as a drop in for “kill someone” is advocating violence/murder.
pre-trial imprisonment is a legal process, as is imprisonment post conviction (if that is the case), therefore people opinioning that someone should face consequences for a crime they committed (again, if that is the case) breaks no rules.
Also, people opinioning if a person is innocent or guilty is not against any rules. It’s not misinformation, as it’s an opinion.
Furthermore, your very flimsy argument that “it’s a violent act” carries no weight. While you are correct that the U.S. correctional institution needs…correction, if you don’t have a valid alternative that can be implemented now, you’re just pissing in the wind.
Okay, so advocating for violence is perfectly allowed if the violence is legal.
Is it allowed to say that gay Saudi Arabians should be put to death? That is the law in Saudi Arabia. It’s a legal form of violence, state sponsored and everything.
If an American cop kills someone and gets acquitted, is it legal to say their victim deserved to die and the cops should kill more people the same legal way?
Is it allowed to say that North Koreans who criticise Kim Jong Un deserve to be imprisoned?
Sounds like they just want clarification on what is/is not okay. I had similar questions. It’s not related to the Luigi situation but is saying someone should be executed by the state advocating violence? I was banned from reddit because of inconsistent moderation on that topic.
Sadly, moderation is done by humans, and each person has their own way of moderating. This is why I generally don’t interact in communities I moderate - helps me distance myself from the content I get reports for. I try to look at the rules, and treat them as a “living document” - one that lists the guidelines, but with the understanding it’s the spirit, not the letter that matters at times.
I’ve been moderating this community for a year, and I’ll admit - it’s hard. Moderate too much, and I’m a tyrant. Moderate too little, and “you let every Nazi say what they want here”.
Is lemmy.world hosted in the USA? The US has extremely strong first amendent protections for speech, except for things such as hate speech and direct threats of violence.
Being in support of someone being killed or someone who has been killed is not legally considered to be a direct threat of violence, because that person is not saying they themselves will commit the violence, just that they hope someone else will.
Why moderate?
The working class is under no obligation to mourn the deaths of those who are actively trying to kill them for profit.
There’s a difference between not mourning a piece of shit and asking for the murder of his peers. The hypocrisy of oligarch-run media (social and traditional) is that they stop having an issue with murder if there’s an Excel spreadsheet between the instigator and the victim.
Because this instance (and all other instances) physically reside in countries with content laws. If we don’t follow those laws, we can be shut down, and the admin/owners that reside in those countries could face legal consequences.
Yeah, it’s a pity that the laws appear to be protecting those the best, who are responsible for the most suffering - after all those have the power to get those laws written.
But that’s the thing: there’s a difference between ‘legal’ and ‘legitimate/true’ behaviour.
While I understand that lemmy instances (et al) have to adhere to legal behaviour, I hope that people adhere to legitimate/true behaviour.
Most people don’t just randomly stumble into legitimate/true behavior. We’re apes, we see something and then do. If it all gets moderated away, the chance for legitimate/true behavior drops dramatically.
I very much hope that action is the outcome of thorough consideration, although oftentimes I have doubts about that.
And still I think we have more up our sleeves than ‘monkey see, monkey do’ schemes.
Don’t forget that capitalism is what you get when you don’t regulate behavior.
Humans are shitty animals.
Removed by mod
Nope. I remove comments that say “this guy needs the Luigi treatment” or things to that effect.
The guy is innocent until proven guilty. Using his name as a drop in for “kill someone” is advocating violence/murder.
pre-trial imprisonment is a legal process, as is imprisonment post conviction (if that is the case), therefore people opinioning that someone should face consequences for a crime they committed (again, if that is the case) breaks no rules.
Also, people opinioning if a person is innocent or guilty is not against any rules. It’s not misinformation, as it’s an opinion.
Furthermore, your very flimsy argument that “it’s a violent act” carries no weight. While you are correct that the U.S. correctional institution needs…correction, if you don’t have a valid alternative that can be implemented now, you’re just pissing in the wind.
Okay, so advocating for violence is perfectly allowed if the violence is legal.
Is it allowed to say that gay Saudi Arabians should be put to death? That is the law in Saudi Arabia. It’s a legal form of violence, state sponsored and everything.
If an American cop kills someone and gets acquitted, is it legal to say their victim deserved to die and the cops should kill more people the same legal way?
Is it allowed to say that North Koreans who criticise Kim Jong Un deserve to be imprisoned?
is there a point to this?
My original comment was that we have to moderate to keep the site from being taken down. All these arguments change nothing.
It feels like an attack, but I’ll leave that to others to decide.
Sounds like they just want clarification on what is/is not okay. I had similar questions. It’s not related to the Luigi situation but is saying someone should be executed by the state advocating violence? I was banned from reddit because of inconsistent moderation on that topic.
Sadly, moderation is done by humans, and each person has their own way of moderating. This is why I generally don’t interact in communities I moderate - helps me distance myself from the content I get reports for. I try to look at the rules, and treat them as a “living document” - one that lists the guidelines, but with the understanding it’s the spirit, not the letter that matters at times.
I’ve been moderating this community for a year, and I’ll admit - it’s hard. Moderate too much, and I’m a tyrant. Moderate too little, and “you let every Nazi say what they want here”.
I’m still working on a balance that works best.
Is lemmy.world hosted in the USA? The US has extremely strong first amendent protections for speech, except for things such as hate speech and direct threats of violence.
Being in support of someone being killed or someone who has been killed is not legally considered to be a direct threat of violence, because that person is not saying they themselves will commit the violence, just that they hope someone else will.
They meant “sensor”.
You meant “censor”
You meant “silencer”.
Pew Pew.