Earlier, after review, we blocked and removed several communities that were providing assistance to access copyrighted/pirated material, which is currently not allowed per Rule #1 of our Code of Conduct. The communities that were removed due to this decision were:
We took this action to protect lemmy.world, lemmy.world’s users, and lemmy.world staff as the material posted in those communities could be problematic for us, because of potential legal issues around copyrighted material and services that provide access to or assistance in obtaining it.
This decision is about liability and does not mean we are otherwise hostile to any of these communities or their users. As the Lemmyverse grows and instances get big, precautions may happen. We will keep monitoring the situation closely, and if in the future we deem it safe, we would gladly reallow these communities.
The discussions that have happened in various threads on Lemmy make it very clear that removing the communites before we announced our intent to remove them is not the level of transparency the community expects, and that as stewards of this community we need to be extremely transparent before we do this again in the future as well as make sure that we get feedback around what the planned changes are, because lemmy.world is yours as much as it is ours.
Precisely nowhere-- I have seen that quote get people banned for advocating violence, and I think that’s pretty crazy; I semi-randomly ask people who moderate this question. I promise there’s no gotcha here.
What about a “Four Boxes” reference?
I had to look up what that even is, because I haven’t encountered that one before. (me not being US-American)
I cannot make a call on a reference to a quote brought forth on an unspecified subject without context.
In regards to JFK - yes that would count as advocating violence in a very generalised sense. But without context, again, I am not able to make a call, whether a ban on someone making the quote is justified or not. In general, moderation policy also falls under freedom of expression. Consequently, freedom of speech is not a claimable right against non-governmental agents. It’s a thing that a lot of people seem to selectively overlook when advocating for what would actually be better described as “Anarchy of speech”.
Please don’t misunderstand. Even the government (US, in my case) doesn’t have unrestricted free speech, and that’s a good thing. We agree here. I even would say that the line as it is currently set in America is “too broad” and that we need to tweak it down a bit. We fail to acknowledge that stochastic terrorism is a thing, in our speech laws, and it essentially makes it completely legal to do as long as you remain sufficiently coded/vague.
If you don’t mind humoring me one more time, feel free to weigh in on my questions, again, but assuming the quotes were both made in context; that is to say, JFK quote for a scenario where peaceful revolution was being restricted, and four boxes (which, in my mind, comes a little too close to the line) in a scenario where people were losing their ability to weigh in on their government actions via speech, voting, and juries.
I can’t seem to articulate, even to myself, why the JFK quote is generally (in my mind) considered non-violent, but the four boxes one (again, in my mind) is more threatening. I’m hoping random internet polling will lead to some insight. haha
No problem, it’s nice to have a level-headed exchange amidst an ongoing tornado of sewage :)
So, I can try to empathize with either side (mods and users) for each of the two quotes, and there might be scenarios where one is completely right and one is wrong. But as an outsider to the kind of debates where these quotes are commonly used, I simply don’t have the cultural understanding to help much with answering your question. Sorry.
Drawing the arch back to my initial statement: There are several levels of escalation present between utilising famous people quotes to make a general point and trying to dodge around community rules by veiling direct threats to a specified (inferred from context) group. I am of the opinion that the guillotine-comment I replied to is definitely stepping over the line and only remains standing, because right now additional enforcement of rules is (probably) not going to improve the weather situation mentioned above.
That’s fair. How does hyperbole factor into this, do you think. I hesitate to say anything that might appear to be defending the comment above, but considering the context (banning people for weak reasons) it seems pretty certain that the user doesn’t actually mean to imply that banning people from some somewhat obscure website for a poor reason should result in death by beheading.
I’m personally of the mind that “it was just hyperbole, bro” isn’t an excuse-- or maybe only very narrowly so-- but what are your thoughts? Is the bannable offense the specific phrase, or the intent of the user?
(I enjoyed this, but now is the last statement from me, because me needing to spend my attention on other things)
User intention can rarely be discerned, not at all reliable or even viable in a public free4all. So, only phrasing and context from previous comments can be considered. Hyperbole (sarcasm, irony and other rhetorical devices) can and will always be taken at face value by someone. They will also be brought in as excuses for breaking rules. Sometimes a mod might be patient enough to engage a person and asking for clarification, but usually it is not worth it and disciplinary action must be taken or some future troll will actually be even correct when complaining about inconsistent moderation.
That’s also fair. Thanks for the discussion!