I'm not here to defend that guy, but since you offered this stance, what do you think about JFK's quote
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Is that an "implied" death threat?
This isn't a gotcha; I'm just curious at your personal opinion.
What specifically would you say makes copyright law apply differently to lemmy.world?
This is the inevitable result of the decision to fund the internet at large via ads. And there would be (has been) tremendous friction from users when it comes to switching from ad-based to subscription, so we might just be stuck with it.
Analogies are generally terrible at convincing people, and even more so when it's about legal situations.
The process would be that they get sent some notice that something they're hosting violates copyright law, and that it needs to be taken down or a lawsuit will happen. Unless they ignore it, and they should definitely not do that, then nothing else happens. If they get a lot of them from a certain community or instance, then they discuss why those mods/admin can't keep their community in order, and if it becomes enough of a hassle, defederation or blocking is prudent.
Copyright law can be pretty ridiculous, no argument there, but this is well trodden stuff here. lemmy.world is not the first social media website that has had this concern.
In context of the admin post they responded to, it just seems like a logical suggestion (not demand). I don't agree that the admins should hand over control, but I also don't see how suggesting it warrants a ban.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
I'm probably being overly cynical, but I have a pretty unflattering option of volunteer moderators and the type of people that seek out such seemingly thankless positions-- and their motivations for doing so. I know this might seem-- bizarre-- considering where I am posting this, but I think it nonetheless.
I like lemmy because there's a modlog to see these things. I do not believe that these users would be unbanned if it hadn't been noticed in the modlog. And it appears they're unbanned from the sitewide ban, but still banned in the community. Not sure what sense that makes.
If your instance gets big enough, you'll also have to deal with petty tyrants seeking out positions of petty power.
but like I said, the risk isn't gone. Any community linked to media (tv shows, movies, games, books, etc) has a plausible risk of copyright infringing links. Should they preemptively ban them all? If not, why not?
I thought we were discussing defederation. You cannot block entire instances on lemmy, that I know of.
Blocking a community does not block the users of the instance. The type of people that would naturally gravitate to, for example, a far right instance of lemmy.
I think one of us doesn't understand federation-- and to be clear, it might be me.
I have just as much info as you do (very little haha) but I am under the impression the server is in Germany. I don't think lemmy.world has any direct connection to the US.Please note that "think" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
The issue is that if (more heavy lifting) these communities were banned without actual evidence of rulebreaking (and it seems that way) then the same argument could be used to ban a lot of communities. Any community based around copyrighted material has the plausible potential to contain links to copyright infringing media. Should they all be banned for that risk?
Like I said, this isn't new ground being traversed. There is a pretty straightforward method for dealing with this that doesn't involve lawsuits unless the LW admins intentionally ignore the process.
People here are acting as if LW is some unique thing and that copyright law is an unknown entity. We know how this works. The person I responded to seems to think that LW is somehow unique, and I would like to understand their thought process.