Hello World,
following feedback we have received in the last few days, both from users and moderators, we are making some changes to clarify our ToS.
Before we get to the changes, we want to remind everyone that we are not a (US) free speech instance. We are not located in US, which means different laws apply. As written in our ToS, we're primarily subject to Dutch, Finnish and German laws. Additionally, it is our discretion to further limit discussion that we don't consider tolerable. There are plenty other websites out there hosted in US and promoting free speech on their platform. You should be aware that even free speech in US does not cover true threats of violence.
Having said that, we have seen a lot of comments removed referring to our ToS, which were not explicitly intended to be covered by our ToS. After discussion with some of our moderators we have determined there to be both an issue with the ambiguity of our ToS to some extent, but also lack of clarity on what we expect from our moderators.
We want to clarify that, when moderators believe certain parts of our ToS do not appropriately cover a specific situation, they are welcome to bring these issues up with our admin team for review, escalating the issue without taking action themselves when in doubt. We also allow for moderator discretion in a lot of cases, as we generally don't review each individual report or moderator action unless they're specifically brought to admin attention. This also means that content that may be permitted by ToS can at the same time be violating community rules and therefore result in moderator action. We have added a new section to our ToS to clarify what we expect from moderators.
We are generally aiming to avoid content organizing, glorifying or suggesting to harm people or animals, but we are limiting the scope of our ToS to build the minimum framework inside which we all can have discussions, leaving a broader area for moderators to decide what is and isn't allowed in the communities they oversee. We trust the moderators judgement and in cases where we see a gross disagreement between moderatos and admins' criteria we can have a conversation and reach an agreement, as in many cases the decision is case-specific and context matters.
We have previously asked moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification when this was suggested in context of murder or other violent crimes. Following a discussion in our team we want to clarify that we are no longer requesting moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification in the context of violent crimes when the crime in question already happened. We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence, which is violating our terms of service.
As always, if you stumble across content that appears to be violating our site or community rules, please use Lemmys report functionality. Especially when threads are very active, moderators will not be able to go through every single comment for review. Reporting content and providing accurate reasons for reports will help moderators deal with problematic content in a reasonable amount of time.
I've never understood this concept. There is no such thing as "(US) free speech". Threats, coercion and blackmail obviously notwithstanding, you're either free to express yourself, or you are not. Of course I understand that right of free expression isn't something that applies to many European people, and there may be pros and cons to that, but nevertheless there is no middle ground on free speech--you're either free or you aren't.
But regardless of that, this is your own private community and you're well within your rights to moderate it however the hell you want, "free speech" really doesn't come into it at all. That's one of the main benefits to federation.
So theres this document called the US Constitution along with its 27 amendments and it uses a lot of big words and phrases like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, Emancipation, etc. You probably wouldn't get it.
Just wait until you hear about the The United States Code...
"Freedom" is a concept, it's neither something unique to America nor is it reliant on any document.
You are either free to express yourself without persecution, or you are not.
The press are either free to publish without persecution, or they are not.
You see, there's this thing called the Theory of Forms. You probably wouldn't get it.
Nothing is ever truly "free" - e.g. you are "free" to fly, but you still need a plane (or helicopter, spaceship, hang glider, rocket backpack, or some other means of conveyance) to make it happen for you. And like, how would one even "speak" on the internet, without some device to send the electronic signals out? Plus there needs to be a recipient machine, to receive those signals, then further broadcast them literally around the entire world...
On Lemmy.World, people are "free" to discuss matters - so long as they do not violate either the community standards (if you don't like those, make your own) or the instance rules aka ToS (same).
It's their machines, it's their rules. At least they offered a clarification here as to what, more precisely, they will be moving forward. In a more nuanced take where since "absolute freedom" is a ridiculous concept that never exists (even the sun will go out one day, due to entropy - everything, literally everything must bow to at the very least entropy, and every other physical rule of the universe as well), this rule clarification actually increases "freedom of speech", by more clearly delineating what someone is allowed to say on Lemmy.World, so that they can type it all out and not be (as) fearful of it being removed and thereby (mostly) wasted.
Anyway, I thought I would offer that thought for consideration just in case.
Funny how words change when they are put together with other words.
"Freedom" != "Freedom of Speech"
The second is a specific thing, it just happens to have "freedom" in its name. Much like Michael Jackson and Michael Scott are different people, despite both having "Michael" in the name, and the former is not an amalgamation of Michael Scott and Janet Jackson, either! It's shocking, I know!
Freedom of Speech's meaning cannot be derived from the individual meanings of the words "freedom", "of" or "speech", not without having exterior knowledge as to the process of how it was created. It's almost as if, and hold on to your hats here this is wild, it's a name for something, not an inherent concept in itself. You even clearly have used this concept before, as you seem to be indirectly aware that Freedom Of Speech and Freedom Of The Press are different things, and surprisingly the "Freedom" part in both means wildly different things (not actually sure whether you are aware of that second part, but it's rather crucial to how they work).
Now, could you maybe say that in hindsight it turned out to be a bad name since the concept it signifies neither related to freedom or speech in their bare meanings? Sure. Take that up with the Naming Authority, second floor, right walkway, sixth door on the left.
Alright well when you write down your "concepts" in legible format then people quoting you shouldn't get corrected, for quoting you, over how true or false your "concepts" are.