this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
479 points (89.6% liked)
Lemmy.World Announcements
29062 readers
7 users here now
This Community is intended for posts about the Lemmy.world server by the admins.
Follow us for server news π
Outages π₯
https://status.lemmy.world
For support with issues at Lemmy.world, go to the Lemmy.world Support community.
Support e-mail
Any support requests are best sent to [email protected] e-mail.
Report contact
- DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport
- Email [email protected] (PGP Supported)
Donations π
If you would like to make a donation to support the cost of running this platform, please do so at the following donation URLs.
If you can, please use / switch to Ko-Fi, it has the lowest fees for us
Join the team
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see you removed the rules against transphobia and clarified that content can't be reported if it's not against the new rules. That sucks
For what I expect are similar reasons the list of forbidden image and text content gets so detailed:
I now know from this list that posting Hieronymus Bosch's "The Garden of Earthly Delights" would be problematic even though it wouldn't occur to me that medieval illustrations of fictional torture would break the rules. And I now no longer know whether this instance considers the usage of variously themed slurs as against the rules, especially in contexts where they're not direct personal user attacks.
What is socially acceptable obviously varies widely from culture to culture, and definitely instance to instance. The brief list from the previous version helped me to identify the overall culture of the instance to figure out if I would be welcome here. Now instead I'm just not sure if a sweet Aztec decorated human skull from c. 1350CE is allowed because it is half literal human remains, half turquoise, haematite and gold mosaic.
I appreciate that finding the balance here is very difficult. It may just be because it's late and I'm tired, but I feel less certain about what the expectations are with this version than I did the previous. I hope you will consider returning a bit more detail to section 5.
That statement is a bit like someone saying 'all lives matter' in response to people saying 'black lives matter' after another black person is gunned down.
Did you guys talk to a lawyer before doing this? Cause I think a lawyer would explain to you exactly why.
You probably should have talked to a lawyer before trying to draft up a legal document.
Should there also be entries to cover Ginger, Blonde, Black, or a million other specific labels which could be targeted?
Isn't singling out Transphobia a form of predjudice? Shouild we also add to the list a few thousand other terms which some people find 'edgy'?
There are very obviously groups of people who are targeted for violence, threats, harassment and abuse based solely on who they are. Ginger, blonde and black haired people don't experience this.
By making it explicit in a ToS or set of rules that attacking these groups of people is against the rules, the Admins could've made those users feel just a little bit safer and welcome on their server. Removing those explicit rules makes them, by contrast, feel unsafer and less welcome. That's one of things .world admin team have achieved with this change.
This is an understandable concern and was certainly not the intent to make users feel unsafe or less welcome. We are going to look at adding something to cover this.
I'm not subscribed to lemmy.world but I got a proposal on a way to handle this. Here it is:
I believe that this should be enough to clarify to those most people that no, bigotry is not allowed in your instance.
I think that's good but protecting religion is questionable to me. I'm not saying its OK to attack people based on their religion but religion isn't a property of a person in the way their ethnicity or sexuality is, it's merely an opinion someone holds. If your wording is adopted, it'd be nice to see the difference between attacking who someone is and an opinion someone holds made clear.
Also needs to reference (dis)ability IMO.
The groups listed as example (notice the "etc.") are up to the admins, I'm suggesting mostly how to word it. It's easy to include/exclude one if they so desire.
That said, I do think that "religious affiliation or lack of" should be included. It might boil down to opinions + a bunch of epistemic statements, but it's consistently a source of persecution.
Personally I believe that this is usually easy - you look at the target of the claim. For example:
This is also up to the admins here though, not me.
I understand where you're coming from with this, but note that complains about ableism, in social media, are often shielding abled people against criticism, not disabled people from prejudice. Stuff like:
That's good to hear.
It's not clear what you're saying? Are you saying transphobes are misogynists?
Is there significant and active discrimination happening to those "millions" of other specific labels where people show up dead on the news in the majority of countries and that exhibit targeted hatred online? Can you point out a single example for a ginger or a blonde being killed because of the color of their hair? Are there statistics about this from various countries?
No, that's very disingenuous and sounds like rhetoric someone would use to ease up the rules about transphobia. I'd argue that what you're doing is a form of semantic manipulation.