https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39616364?scrollToComments=true
https://lemmy.world/u/[email protected]
https://lemmy.world/modlog/?userId=1957570
Underage, you will be unbanned when you turn 18 (happy birthday in advance)
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39616364?scrollToComments=true
https://lemmy.world/u/[email protected]
https://lemmy.world/modlog/?userId=1957570
Underage, you will be unbanned when you turn 18 (happy birthday in advance)
did he though? He just posted to a community there from lemm.ee . He didn’t agree to the ToS
He didn’t even bother to read it. Which is why he ended up getting banned. You don’t get to waive out of a speeding ticket just because you didn’t bother to read the speed limit signs.
If I didn’t bother to read the rules of an instance, and then got my shit removed because I violated those rules, I’d just accept that I made an error and walk away.
So…
I stand by my YDI.
But, he never signed up to the instance. He made a post from another instance, which got federated to .world.
And if you check their comment history, you’ll see that they post in .world quite frequently.
The ToS specifically says:
Since the post just federated to a lemmy world comm, they didn’t access the website at all.
Holy shit how do you not understand this?
Tell me that if you owned and operated an instance that doesn’t allow NSFW content, that you’d do nothing at all if I posted porn to it from an account that was hosted on a different instance…
Or would I have to follow the rules of your instance regardless of what my home instance is?
A terms of service is a legal agreement between a user and the host. The user in this case did not access lemmy.world and is not their user, so cannot be bound by the ToS. The same way you cannot be forced into an optional legal agreement that you haven’t read or seen.
There is no question that the lemmy.world admins can ban someone from their site if they wish to, but claiming its for a violation of ToS is completely incorrect. The lemmy.world admin in this case decided to arbitrarily ban someone because they say they’re under 18, even though there is no legal consideration for lemmy.world here.
Can they do this? Yes. It’s their site. But they are incorrect to refer to their ToS for this ban, because the user is not bound by this.
The action taken was outside of any stated lemmy.world policy on moderation.
Their terms of service state that you must be of a certain age to use their instance. It’s not a sign-able agreement. It’s the terms of their service. It’s their rules. As in… the TERMS of their service. Using their instance is the agreement.
Besides… if they want- they can just ban you for whatever reason they choose. So, whether your nitpicking of the definition of Terms of Service is correct or not, the point remains.
I’ll tell you what though, if you think you have a case… go ahead and offer to represent them in a lawsuit. See how far that flies. But I’m going to guess that there is no legal precedent that states they have a right to post whatever they want wherever they want- regardless of the Terms of Service.
It absolutely is a signable agreement, you agreed to it when you signed up to lemmy.world 🤦♂️ you even have to specifically type that you agree these days, I believe.
And yes, by using the website you agree to it - except (as i and others have to keep pointing out) the user did not use lemmy.worlds website at any point. That isn’t how federation works. To suggest it does is just ignorance of the topic.
Yes, we agree that they can ban them for any reason they choose, that’s not up for debate, but they cannot apply a clause from their terms of service and specifically cite their terms of service, because it doesn’t apply to the remote user.
The largest lemmy instance should be held to account for their actions (as should any lemmy instance). The admin didn’t even have to state a reason for the ban, but by saying its the ToS they’ve invalidated their action. It’s not rocket science if you take two minutes to understand how federation and ToS works.
Check their comment history. They post in .world VERY often.
This isn’t up for debate. They violated the rules. They may have a different home instance, but they post in .world. That- according to the rules, violates the ToS of .world.
I don’t get how this isn’t getting through to you, but I honestly don’t care to keep explaining it.
Dude was banned. You’re gong to have to learn how to be okay with that.
No, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how federation works.
The user is on lemm.ee. When they make a post, they’re posting to a local copy of the community, and never directly onto the server. Thats not how federation works and so your points are all totally invalid.
At no point does the user ever make contact themselves with that external server. They never physically touch lemmy.world in their actions, everything they do is on lemm.ee, and so lemm.ee’s Terms of Service is the one that applies to the user.
As has already been hashed out multiple times, Lemmy.world’s ToS is not relevant here and does not apply to an external user.
This is totally up for debate, and you don’t understand it. That’s fine, learn from people who do know and take it with some humility.
Oh and if you still don’t get why its important and how wrong you are - if you were right, then every single post you make is federated to thousands of different fedi servers. Suddenly, you would be legally in contract with all those thousands of servers and their ToS. Imagine if I put in mine that users have to pay a small sum of currency for every post that they make on my server. In your incorrect definition, you would be liable for that just like lemmy.world have applied their ToS against someone who isn’t one of their users.
What lemmy.world should do is update their moderation policies/code of conduct/whatever to specifically say that they will ban you if they suspect you are under 18. Its such an easy fix. This never had to be so wrong in the first place.
ROFL….
Glad to see you admit you don’t know what you’re talking about about.
When other instance admins who have to be familar with this law interaction disagree with you, you’re probably wrong.
In other words, “I have no rebuttal”