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)
Yeah, it seems a little odd to do a full ban for anyone under 18. Do they feel that all communities on there are not appropriate for minors?
Afaik, there are laws and regulations that make it more difficult to collect personal information about minors including their email address. I imagine the admins understandably just don’t want to deal with that.
That’s not really relevant in this case though, federated profiles don’t contain any of that information. They just contain the public posts and comments and anything the person might have added to their profile bio directly. They don’t contain personal information of any kind.
That’s a fair point that I have not considered. It’s much easier to claim ignorance as an instance admin, if said user did not spill they were underage. It’s indeed far more likely that they do not mind, but if the evidence is clear as day, they can not ignore it anymore either.
Yes and I fully agree. Online interactions are unrated by PEGI for a reason.
You admitted to violating ToS, soooo…. Yeah. YDI.
Moving forward, know that your choices are:
- Be dishonest with your age
- Don’t tell anyone abut your age
- Read the rules of the instance prior to using it.
did he though? He just posted to a community there from lemm.ee . He didn’t agree to the ToS
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:
By using the website, you represent that you are at least 18
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.
@[email protected] Is it the responsibility of gmail to make sure that people on other mail services don’t break their TOS?
Isn’t that the whole point of email being federated?
It’s always a bit surprising when people reply from Misskey or Mastodon, I feel like I have to answer while they just comment generally
@[email protected] I started making “lists” of lemmy communities on sharkey, because lemmy still doesn’t have the feature.
That is a kind of shitty response from World and seems a little condescending to me, but tone is difficult. You are welcome here and I would rather you stay and interact with the rest of us than leave the fediverse. Your voice matters and I didn’t have the same outlets when I was your age.
Right… What are we trying to protect the kid here from…
If he knows how to use fedi prolly already using Linux too… Anyone with Linux skills will figure a way around anything online tbh
If he knows how to use [fediverse sites][, he is] prolly already using Linux too… Anyone with Linux skills will figure a way around anything online [to be honest.]
Yes, the same as if I lock a door someone breaking the rules will just climb in a window, and that should somehow be okay but isn’t.
That’s how the internet works…
I think it’s less about protecting the kid but about liability. You can just enter under 18, but they have to do something when you boast about it. It’s not as if check your ID.
What’s the liability? Tiktok and faceberg permits teenagers to use their websites and nothing ever happened to them.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/15/tech/tiktok-fine-europe-children/index.html
It’s the reason zucc and co want to destroy europe.
to recommend content like videos and posts could “exploit the weaknesses and inexperience” of children and stimulate “addictive behaviour.” It’
Are you suggesting that Lemmy instances are engaged in behaviour like this?
Do you have evidence?
There’s porn and violence and other adult content on Lemmy instances.
You gotta follow the law of your target countries or youll end up in the dark net.
The links were to disprove your claim nobody is holding them accountable.
There’s porn and violence and other adult content on Lemmy instances.
So nothing then…
You gotta follow the law of your target countries or youll end up in the dark net.
Everyone follows the law… How is permitting a teenager to use a public message board violates the law?
There’s porn and violence and other adult content on Lemmy instances.
Like there is in movies, TV, art, history, and other websites.
So they banned an under age user from only their instance for the exact amount of time until they become old enough to be a legitimate user on their instance?
Man I want Reddit mod drama back. Where’s I was banned for sleeping with my step mod?!?
PTB. This is unreasonable. Also trying to prevent teenagers from accessing the internet is just going to lead to all teenagers just lying about their age. It’s not going to stop it. It’s just going to mean they can’t discuss their actual opinions and issues honestly. It would also reinforce the need to lie to be part of culture, which is just not healthy.
Teenagers lying about their age on the internet is as old as teenagers on the internet.
Keeping the age barriers in place is good anyway. It communicates to younger people clearly that the content is not considered suitable for them. It gives them a moment to think and reconsider.
Participating in online culture might be generally not healthy for adults as well.
I hope you’re independently wealthy and can afford legal fees.
What’s most important is that you got to feel smug.
What’s most important is that you got to feel smug.
What’s most important is not having every fucking instance other than .world hanging from a legal thread. Isn’t your instance based in the E fucking U? That’s not exactly the wild fucking west as far as legal requirements for hosts go.
Believe it or not, I don’t want any of this shit going down. I’m not fucking 20, I’m not full of vim and vigor. I don’t get a fucking thrill out of fighting with people online anymore. I question why I stay in these communities when everyone seems content to play chicken on the railroad tracks.
I don’t get a fucking thrill out of fighting with people online anymore.
lol
I don’t get a fucking thrill out of fighting with people online anymore.
I find this hard to believe
That’s literally the only reason he does it, otherwise he would’ve stopped a long time ago.
after two decades of unfettered internet access, I still love picking fights.
maybe I’m just built different
I find this hard to believe
I find it tedious and miserable. I engage for the same reason I can’t leave trash on the floor - the inaction irritates me more than the tedious action. If I find trash on the floor constantly in a public area, I’m more likely to leave than become a super-cleaner.
… bye, I guess.
Man, that constant “I’m the only adult in the room” vibe you try to have is getting
obnoxiousold.Man, that constant “I’m the only adult in the room” vibe you try to have is getting
obnoxiousold.Yeah, I fucking agree. It’s getting real old being the only adult in the room. I didn’t realize the admins of most Lemmy instances were just winging it, thinking “Well, when it comes crashing down, it comes crashing down 😊”
Utter zero-foresight techbro shite. Jesus Christ.
Sadly You’re not the real adult in the room. You’re just a smuglord who’s way too high on the smell of their own farts.
Sadly You’re not the real adult in the room. You’re just a smuglord who’s way too high on the smell of their own farts.
Legit, I thought you took your instance more seriously than this. This is basic covering-your-ass shit.
I think an 18+ rule for an instance that allows porn or federates with porn instances is reasonable. And when you interact with another instance’s communities, you are beholden to their rules. And the admin who did it said they’re talking about changing the rule. So it’s not like they’re just trying to be dicks.
So… I’m going to go with admins did what they had to, sag learned a tiny lesson about not giving people more information than they needed. I don’t want to say YDI, though.
Eh, kinda half and half. Kids these days seem to forget rule #1 of the internet: if you’re under 18 never admit it anywhere, anytime, for any reason.
Hell, don’t even admit you made your account when you were underage, but aren’t now. I’ve seen regular forums and MMORPGs ban people who admitted they were underage at the time they made the account, but not anymore
I feel like the rules of the internet should be taught again, or at least particularly stuff like “don’t feed the trolls”. All of these engagement based algorithms are too focused on pushing bait content.
ptb
but…
I think it’s great that we can expect actual rules and enforcement from instance admins, and have a chance to suss out the edges of these rules in open fora.
PTB, this seems really like they’re overstepping their bounds, @[email protected] has clarified the matter.
Unfortunately this isn’t the first time Lemmy.world has done something like this using “legal” as an excuse, and probably won’t be the last time. They’re too big so they’ll never get defederated or penalized by any server wishing to stay even remotely relevant so nothing is likely to change.
Damn, i liked sag :(
I think i’m going with a soft PTB from my pov. Tbf dbzer0 is pretty lax on rules, especially towards people outside the instance. I don’t think it’s within my place or anyone else’s to ban someone from such a huge part of the fediverse.
But this highlights the need to decentralize from .world, the fact that a single instance ban can take away such a huge part of the fediverse from a user feels ridiculous.
I get why they did it, but it feels unfair.
I willingly blocked .world that place is a toxic cesspool. It also felt too much like reddit.
Yeah, this sort of stuff strikes me as bad for the user affected and for .world, but good for lemmy overall. An active, competent user is being forced to post to non-LW communities exclusively.
Damn RIP then if I got banned from .world after this post I am leaving Lemmy.
I hope he doesn’t.
Agreed. But even if he does, this sort of stuff contributes to a reputation and could lead future users to choose to post to communities on better instances. That’s the part I think would be good for lemmy overall.
I think i’m going with PTB from my pov. Tbf dbzer0 is pretty lax on rules, especially towards people outside the instance. I don’t think it’s within my place or anyone else’s to ban someone from such a huge part of the fediverse.
Then admins have no place banning people?
Yeah, that probably wasn’t a good point.
I feel my point on
But this highlights the need to decentralize from .world, the fact that a single instance ban can take away such a huge part of the fediverse from a user feels ridiculous.
Was probably a better one.
.World is a good instance, but they are too big. Being banned from just any other instance? You can deal with. But being banned off of .world effectively takes away most lemmy content away from you.
Damn RIP then if I got banned from .world after this post I am leaving Lemmy.
Ultimately i understand why they did it, but sag was a great poster.
That’s the main reason why we decided to migrate [email protected] to [email protected] : lemmy.world are too big.
Bruh
Why we banning kids now?
What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?
😓
What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?
That’s the whole point, they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children. People are going to argue otherwise but as a trans person myself I’ve seen this and you’re not fooling anyone with your lame excuses about protecting kids. People especially those who are vulnerable need support networks, do you know how many trans kids kill themselves because they can’t get the support they need and live with abusive and controlling parents. Don’t tell me it’s to protect kids, I’m not stupid enough to buy that lie and you’re not stupid enough to think I’d buy it.
Children are not fucking chattel and I’m tired of pretending like they are.
It’s weird to confuse responsibility and mentorship with ownership.
It’s weird that you consider actions reminiscent of ownership and control, like trying to keep children away from support groups, or preventing a trans kid from expressing themselves in a way that aligns with their gender identity, responsibility or mentorship. You sound so much like a right wing troll right now, and it’s not funny or amusing.
What, are you going to say that children don’t understand their gender? That they’re confused? That all parents care for their kids and should be the only influence in their lives? It’s certainly sounds like that’s where you’re going right now.
This is the fediverse, they can sign up to any instance that will have them.
So the account on Blahaj would be able to see and interact with any community not hosted on World, World gets to stay compliant with whatever laws it needs to abide by, everybody’s happy and there’s jam for tea.
That user’s posts also wouldn’t be visible by all of LW population, so a third of the platform
That’s an issue having a more evenly distributed userbase would solve, assuming that multiple, smaller instances wouldn’t also feel bound by similar laws. You can’t eat your cake and still have it.
That’s the whole point[:] they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children.
I wish I had your mind-reading ability. Without that omniscient edge this looks like the weirdest bit of teen O.D.D today.
Am I supposed to feel insulted? I don’t care what some right wing troll thinks of me. Whether you like it or not, right wing politicians push for these tactics to take support networks away from vulnerable people who they believe to have ownership of.
Aw, they actually did the ban. That’s unfortunate.
On one hand, yes, legal liability and all that, but on the other hand half the site is copyright violations. The law only matters sometimes. I say this as someone who has hosted web communities myself, there’s no reason to be banning for something like age on these instances, especially when we’re talking 16 and not 12. It’s unenforceable and trivial enough that there’s no legal pressure to do so.
I just think they should make a new account and not say that they are underage. I don’t so much have a problem with people being underage online but saying that you are is putting an unnecessary target on your back.
Hey, I’m the one that decided to ban this user. I understand the frustration, but it is very much in the TOS of lemmy.world and has been for a long time.
We are having an internal discussion to see if there’s room to lower the age to 16 and if we can make exceptions for federated users.
I hope you see that this really isn’t meant as a powertrip, and we are just trying to protect the Lemmy.world site.
Sorry if I do not respond to comments quickly, it’s late in my timezone.
(Opinion bit)
There should definitely be an exception for federated users. @[email protected] did not sign up to lemmy.world and therefore did not agree to the ToS.
(I am not a lawyer, anyone else can correct the stuff I say below)
Since lw isn’t storing sag’s data (apart from public posts and comments) there shouldn’t be any concerns with child data protection. lemm.ee would be serving them content that under 18s shouldn’t view, not lw (unless they are hosting it, which I don’t think you do?). I may be missing something (again, not a lawyer) but what is the point of this other than being (in my opinion, a bit too) careful with the law?
Hello,
Thank you for chiming in. Exceptions for federated users would be nice, especially for someone turning 18 in a few months.
Yea, I agree, and I would personally be for that. But I am not well versed in the law, and don’t have any stake in the legal side of it all except for me liking lemmy.world, so it’s not my decision.
I really hope people understand where we as admins are coming from, we really take no enjoyment out of banning anyone (except for spammers).
I really hope people understand where we as admins are coming from, we really take no enjoyment out of banning anyone (except for spammers).
That’s one of the most transparent lies I’ve heard. Power corrupts, and I’ve seen plenty of lemmy.world admins who certainly do enjoy it, and who do it to people to prove a point or as a knee jerk reaction to disagreement. You can call it whatever you want to call, you can deny this fact but it does happen and I’ve seen it myself, and I’d prefer you don’t try to feed me lies I’m smart enough to see right through.
I understand that my comment was ambiguous, I tried to say that the current admins, in my experience, don’t enjoy banning people.
I’m sorry but the “(happy birthday in advance)” doesn’t really paint that ban in the best light
Yeah that doesn’t at all, it definitely does come across as enjoying it and makes his statements less believable.
That wasn’t meant to sound mean, just something that popped up in my head because it was about a birthday.
I don’t know if that’s entirely true for all or even most of the current ones, it certainly isn’t for past lemmy.world admins, who may or may not still be on the team.
Eh, well… I can’t really respond to that statement if I don’t know who you are talking about.
Let’s hope that you can work something out!
Disappointing, yet understandable :/ Thank you for replying, and addressing this.
Removed by mod
I disagree, the account that was banned posted a lot of good content. We are not talking about 12 year olds, we are talking about people between 16 and 18.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
sag was a very valuable member of Lemmy, and so is blaze. You’re one to talk, with 0 posts.
Removed by mod
I’m really not sure how the TOS apply given it opens with:
This Terms of Service applies to your access to and active use of https://lemmy.world/, it’s API’s and sub-domain services (ex alt GUIs)(we, us, our the website, Lemmy.World, or LW) as well as all other properties and services associated with Lemmy.World.
Sag wasn’t accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself. This would be like an email provider blocking a particular address from another service because the user of that address doesn’t comply with a part of their TOS.
Fully agree.
CLM/CLA.
@[email protected] While the email analogy works well, activityPub is technically an api.
It’s a protocol, which I suppose you could argue is an API though that’d be a very liberal definition of API.
Sag wasn’t accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself.
He posted on “[email protected]”
And I disagree that that counts as making use of the service. Lemmy also sends Webmentions, if someone with a world account posts a blog post from someone and world then sends a Webmention to that blog, does lemmy.world’s TOS apply to the blogger? TOS applying over distributed systems is frankly impracticable.
And I disagree that that counts as making use of the service.
… what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the service’s comms?
Is it impossible to make use of the service unless you’re a user signed up on the service?
If so, should it be regarded that admins have no authority to bar any user from another instance from the admin’s instance?
They’re not making use of the service, though. That’s a misunderstanding. They’re making use of their home servers copy of the other servers community. The user isn’t directly using the remote service.
It’d be like having two email companies, one only allowing over 18s to have an account. You wouldn’t say you’re making use of the other email service if you send an email to them. You’re not beholden to their ToS or CoC. Same applies here imo.
They’re not making use of the service, though. That’s a misunderstanding. They’re making use of their home servers copy of the other servers community. The user isn’t directly using the remote service.
What happens when a user posts to that comm?
Does that user’s post remain only on their home server’s copy of the comm, or does it get federated to the comm they posted to?
That’s irrelevant. The post wasn’t made via lemmy.zip. we have a copy of the post but the user didn’t interact at all with our website or our server. Their server did, not the user. Again, email. If I have an Outlook account and send an email to a Gmail account, I’m not suddenly subject to the Gmail ToS.
Otherwise I’d set up my own email and say anyone that emailed me had to pay me a million bananas as part of my ToS.
That’s irrelevant. The post wasn’t made via lemmy.zip. we have a copy of the post but the user didn’t interact at all with our website or our server. Their server did, not the user.
Fucking what.
If I write a poem and have someone slap it on the local bulletin board for me, have I not interacted with the bulletin board?
Furthermore, elsewhere you mention interacting as not being accessing (specifically mentioning that ‘interacting’ only has the CoC applied), but here you claim a lack of interaction as reason for non-enforcement of the ToS.
Again, email. If I have an Outlook account and send an email to a Gmail account, I’m not suddenly subject to the Gmail ToS.
Bruh, that’s literally how it works. Why do you think email accounts from other services can be banned from sending to email services? Gmail can (and literally does) run a blocklist, however ineffective, of email accounts from other email services for violating their ToS.
… what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the service’s comms?
Using lemmy.word to access content. Using https://feddit.uk/post/25339637 to view the content is making use of feddit.uk’s services, using https://lemmy.world/post/26548121 is making use of lemmy.world’s services. Would using an archive to access a lemmy.world post be making use of the service?
Is it impossible to make use of the service unless you’re a user signed up on the service?
I wouldn’t say so, even going to lemmy.world without an account would be making use of the service in my mind.
If so, should it be regarded that admins have no authority to bar any user from another instance from the admin’s instance?
No? Community spaces can still have rules that govern themselves (that’s why sidebars federate), it’s just that terms of service are for people making use of the service.
Using lemmy.word to access content. Using https://feddit.uk/post/25339637 to view the content is making use of feddit.uk’s services, using https://lemmy.world/post/26548121 is making use of lemmy.world’s services. Would using an archive to access a lemmy.world post be making use of the service?
Can you post to Lemmy.world using an archive?
If not, the question seems of dubious relevance.
I wouldn’t say so, even going to lemmy.world without an account would be making use of the service in my mind.
But going to Lemmy.world with an account isn’t making use of the service, so long as it’s not a .world account?
No? Community spaces can still have rules that govern themselves (that’s why sidebars federate), it’s just that terms of service are for people making use of the service.
But if no user from another instance is ever using any of the instances they post to, save for their own, how can an admin have the right to ban them?
Can you post to Lemmy.world using an archive?
If not, the question seems of dubious relevance.
Federation between instances is like an archive in a state of flux. You can still access feddit.de content despite the service being down.
But going to Lemmy.world with an account isn’t making use of the service, so long as it’s not a .world account?
They didn’t go to lemmy.world with an account? They went to https://lemm.ee/c/[email protected] with a lemm.ee account. For my comment to reach you, it has to go through Cloudfair as lemmy.world uses them for DDoS protection. Am I subject to Cloudfair’s TOS?
But if no user from another instance is ever using any of the instances they post to, save for their own, how can an admin have the right to ban them?
It’s perfectly within lemmy.world’s remit to ban a user for whatever reasons they feel like, I just don’t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.
Federation between instances is like an archive in a state of flux. You can still access feddit.de content despite the service being down.
You aren’t answering the question about posting content.
They didn’t go to lemmy.world with an account? They went to https://lemm.ee/c/[email protected] with a lemm.ee account.
Okay, well, they can still go there, it’s just that their content no longer federates to lemmy.world. I guess everyone should be happy?
For my comment to reach you, it has to go through Cloudfair as lemmy.world uses them for DDoS protection. Am I subject to Cloudfair’s TOS?
That’s not even close to equivalent. If the ToS for dbzer0 included, say, something ridiculous, like “Don’t use the letter S”, and you used the letter S, would you posting here be a violation of the ToS, or not? Regardless of whether you think the ToS is reasonable.
It’s perfectly within lemmy.world’s remit to ban a user for whatever reasons they feel like, I just don’t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.
If ToS aren’t going to be enforced, you may as well not have them.
Maybe [email protected] could become an alternative
4.0: By agreeing to this section of the document, you accept that:
4.0.0: You may only use Lemmy.zip if you can clearly understand and actively comply with the terms laid out on this page.
4.0.1: You have not previously been permanently banned from the website.
4.0.2: You are at least 18 years of age and over the regulated minimum age defined by your local law to access Lemmy.zip.
Ah, thanks
Just to make sure, @[email protected] , would you have instance banned that user in a similar situation?
Not if they’re a federated user. They’re not my user to worry about. Even if they say they’re not 18 it doesn’t apply imo, they’re not interacting directly with lemmy.zip.
You have to agree that you’re over 18 to use lemmy.zip directly as per ToS
Great, thanks!
Not if they’re a federated user. They’re not my user to worry about. Even if they say they’re not 18 it doesn’t apply imo, they’re not interacting directly with lemmy.zip.
4.0.2: You are at least 18 years of age and over the regulated minimum age defined by your local law to access Lemmy.zip.
Does posting to Lemmy.zip not count as accessing?
Just replied to another of your comments, but in summary no. They’re not one of my users and I don’t hold any data on them nor do they access lemmy.zip directly.
