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.
You must log in or register to comment.
🤡
I have read it all, and i genuinely still don’t know how or what is applied to the dead CEO.
removed by mod
Woah, I get not allowing advocating for violence, but restricting people from discussing the topic of jury nullification is pretty messed up regardless of how you feel about the killing.
In the TOS, I would appreciate it if you would make it clear to users signing up for Lemmy.world which legal jurisdiction the site at large falls under and that the content here must abide by because this is not made clear on the sign up page or in the TOS (it should be front and center, not several scrolls down the page, at the bottom, because it is the basis for everything else in the TOS). At the time of this comment this information also isn’t listed on any sidebar, or about page for the site itself or the Lemmy.world community/sign up pages so far as I have been able to tell.
The TOS is a legal document and as such, changes should also probably be dated to reflect to existing users what has changed or been updated since their initial sign up and the fact that it is less likely for them to review the TOS at a later date unless you notify them (by email or similar) or they run afoul of the document. This adds important context both for the users and for the legal jurisdiction.
This is also important for moderators who may or may not live or otherwise be subject to the laws of the legal jurisdiction of the site, because naturally moderators will default to and be swayed by what is legal (or illegal) in the jurisdiction where they operate, and will more than likely also not be well acquainted with the laws and regulations outside of where they operate.
Before we get to the changes, we want to remind everyone that we are not a (US) free speech instance.
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.
“Freedom” is a concept, it’s neither something unique to America nor is it reliant on any document.
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.
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.
You really need to read up on some laws in your country.
Reddit was the free speech instance all along? Honestly, with the mods clarifying this I’m asking myself - why the fuck am I on Lemmy again?
Everyone who opposes the assassination of one CEO is glorifying the thousands of murders he committed. It’s one or the other.
Uh…that’s not how it works at all. You should get past that logic in 5th or 6th grade.
Classic “angry teenager” argument. Not cool.
If you don’t support violence, then you support evil. That’s about as angsty tween as it gets.
Drag disagrees, but drag thought of a better and more fun argument anyway.
Imprisonment is a violent act. Anyone saying the police should imprison The Adjuster is advocating violence, and the admins should remove their comments.
I’m a Canadian. I want Americans to have a proper health care system. I just don’t think a campaign of assassinations is going to get you there. I think it’s far more likely to backfire and turn the US into a Robocop-style dystopian hellscape where all the big companies have their own private armies working security and regular people aren’t even allowed into their city’s business district without going through security checkpoints.
Why not nationalize all of the health insurance companies, fire all the executives, and turn it all into a public health insurance agency?
But that other company already walked back the policy to not cover anaesthesia for the whole duration of surgeries.
And that’s great but honestly that’s still peanuts if your goal is to have a proper public health care system where no one has to go broke because they’re uninsured when they get sick.
Are you against progress to a goal? We can’t just instantly change something as large as the medical industry overnight
I am for progress towards a goal.
None of the assassination advocates have laid out a concrete plan as to how assassinations will achieve their goals. All I’ve seen is:
- Assassinate the CEOs
- ???
- We win!
No discussion at all of how this could backfire and lead to a dystopian hellscape, or how to avoid such a backfire. Things are very different from 1917. Technology is far more advanced and it’s not in the favour of citizens’ militias.
Oh, Americans have given up on being that hopeful. Beggars can’t be choosers.
Why not nationalize all of the health insurance companies, fire all the executives, and turn it all into a public health insurance agency?
Why not just have Russia end the war in Ukraine and Putin steps down and allows a real democracy to happen?
… Yeah, do you see the issue with your statements now?
Ukraine is working toward making that happen. They’re much closer to achieving it than they were 2 years ago.
And they definitely haven’t done so peacefully. So my point stands
They’re doing so lawfully.
I don’t think it’s legal for Russia to attack Ukraine, in Ukraine.
Also stop bullshitting, Ukraine is achieving peace and defending itself through missiles, bombs, and bullets, not lawyers.
It’s legal for Ukraine to defend itself from Russia.
So i can talk about a case of jury nullification that happened last year, but not talk aboit how that should happen every time. Unless the crime was non violent then im ok to say “that should happen all the time”.
Anyone who wants The Adjuster to be imprisoned is supporting violence against him. Imprisonment is a violent act. Drag thinks the Lemmy.world admins should make sure to remove any comments advocating imprisonment.
Drag sounds like a hoopy frood, as does The Adjuster. Ford agrees
Drag would like to share a pan galactic gargle blaster with Ford sometime.
The 1st and 374/0? rounds are on me
Imprisonment is meant to be a means of reducing possible harm and a means of reform, but if you disagree with that then you should take it up with the legislators in the USA and not the website admins.
and a means of reform
In the USA? Lmao
No, just in general. The entire concept of imprisonment. Whether it’s an ideal reality or a horrific dystopia, there has gotta be a place to put somebody when they’re not safe to roam free.
Muad’dib is perfectly safe to roam free.
Idk what that is and have no intention to look it up.
Muad’dib. The Adjuster. The Grin Reaper. The DDDer. The CEO Assassin. Lissan Al Gaib. The Healthcare Provider. Desmond Miles. The Equaliser. Mr Richeater. John Wick. Hero.
I also did not ask.
Oh, sorry, are you saying the use of guns is justified and nonviolent if the intention is to reduce further violence?
Drag wonders if this principle could be applied to any recent events…
I guess we’ll just see how much or how little good comes of all this very soon, won’t we?
Best possible case scenario: it’s still legal to rip people off and privatize healthcare, so that just keeps happening but at least we get to feel good about punishing that one guy’s family for his crimes.
Worst case scenario: A very large number of copycat killers (secretly funded by overseas autocrats) drag Taylor Swift across pavement, Bill Gates burns alive in his home, and both of their heirs invest everything into fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the new US Administration views the situation as worthy of enforcing martial law and deploys the military on its own people. Congress is reluctant at first, but it could always be one of them killed by a vigilante next.
But most likely scenario is still that nothing has changed, nothing will
You seem to have completely failed to understand why exactly people are so supportive of the killer. He didn’t just murder a random stranger. It wasn’t just some guy. He was among the most evil people in America. A man who profited off of denying Healthcare to dying children. Directly. He was an evil cretin. A vile capitalist.
I understand 100%, its really simple to work out. Glad that CEO is dead, fuck em.
Problem is: there should be a price to pay for one of us to kill another illegally. We are not capable of making decisions like that alone, it needed to be done via politics and the courts.
I’m sure if they turn themselves in they will probably be treated very amicably by the jury.
That other health insurance company already walked back their policy about not covering anaesthetic for the whole of a surgery. Muad’dib has already improved the world.
TBH it’d be hard to organize a board meeting, write up, and sign off on changes like that in like a day so there is a chance that was coincidental timing. You could just as easily say their reversal was the result of the Governor calling them out on it.
If you believe that his family was punished, then do you believe that the death penalty as used by the justice system is also a punishment on those people’s families? Because kin punishment is generally considered a human rights violation, and is illegal in the US as far as I’m aware.
Are you comparing the justice system to vigilante’s killing unarmed civillians in the street as equals?
Let me tell you the difference. You could have voted to change the laws, voted in the people who selected the judges, when you’re arrested it’s the result of choices made by every eligible american citizen, in some states including felons.
You don’t get to choose if a guy who shoots you next week. You don’t get to state your case before a jury. It’s a system where the people most willing and able to commit harm are kings.
He was not civilian, he was a CEO a member of the ruling class. He wasn’t some working class everyman, he was a profiteer of medical malpractice. He was the grim reaper and could decide arbitrarily every day whether people lived or died. The more he choose for them to die the more money he made.
He had rights to a trial before execution, even the worst of us do. I don’t mourn him, but the killer should just surrender themselves and ask the judge and jury for lienency.
We’ve tried the whole voting thing for 40 years now. We’ve tried the whole justice system thing for 40 years now.
It doesn’t work. Make peaceful change impossible and violent revolution becomes inevitable. Hope this CEO is just the first to fall.
Our entire system is corrupt from top to bottom and there’s no more playing nice.
The USA hasn’t tried shit, thats why we’re in this mess.
Obamacare was originally a single payer bill which was defeated in the senate.
Since then we elected more pure privatization officials. We gave the Biden admin a conservative congress and SCOTUS.
We had a big shiny lever that said (STOP KILLING SICK PEOPLE) and we refused to pull it for over a decade.
kinda defeating yout own point here:
the guy made the concious decision to ruin strangers lives for nothing but his personal greed every single day.
that was HIS choice, HIS action, HIS decision.
well…actions tend to have consequences.
this was a direct consequence of actions the CEO willingly made, repeatedly.
nobody forced him to. nobody compelled him to.
so yeah, he DID choose exactly this, no question about it.
the hypothetical voter in your example indirectly chooses his judgement, this CEO chose directly, all by himself.
so as you can see: the CEO very much DID vote for his fate. he voted every single day working for UHC.
your comment is the absolutely highest form of hypocrisy.
And you should have voted against privatized healthcare like 16 years ago and every time since, but the majority keeps choosing self harm and anybody loyal to the country has to deal with it.
There is no hipocrisy here. I think people who choose to be harmed have to deal with it, that people don’t get to kill outside of the confines of the law.
I believe Democracy is the best system for mankind, through and through, with all of its flaws.
Nobody is going after Taylor swift you can calm down. Bill Gates is also an unlikely target.
Neither of those people bring up rage in people. They’re not murdering people’s families for profit by denying and delaying care.
You wanna know who killed my father? The healthcare industry. The insurance companies and the rehab facility (physical, not drug, not that it matters) decided to traffic him and hold him hostage so they could collect his insurance money while refusing to provide care and refusing to send him to the hospital when he needed more intense care. These people are fucking ghouls and they deserve the full wrath of the most heavily armed population on earth.
We’re not exactly deciding who lives or dies as a group, here. It could be literally anybody next and your opinion doesn’t matter.
I can tell you if there’s gonna be another assasination it’s gonna be someone similar to the CEO who just got offed. Universally hated and actively killing people through administrative means.
Again, we don’t get to pick.
well you posed an outlandish scenario as your worst case, yet used a pretty moderate one as your best possible case. i think there is some bias there.
Yeah I really layed it on thick with the WORST outcome. Don’t see any issue at all with the best case, though.
surely the best possible outcome is all CEOs learn their lesson and everybody lives happily ever after?
Even if they do exactly that, there is always going to be somebody new who comes along and sees profit to be made. We don’t have to wait for them to learn, we can just change the laws and reform healthcare.
Deposing healthcare CEOs is harm reduction that’s far more useful than prison.
Lol no, prison for the shooter. He should turn himself in.
The shooter should go down the list of health insurance CEOs one by one until we get single payer by force.
Zero fucks given fuck these mass murdering wealthy off our deaths pieces of shit.
They actually caught him, so unless you’re suiting up yourself then your only option now is to vote against privatization of healthcare in 2026. Chances are that means straight blue.
Democrats won’t. Republicans won’t. There will be copycats.
Democrats barely had enough votes to pass the ACA and medicaid expansion, if they had more back then it would have been Single Payer. There have been less Democrats in the senate ever since. Republicans all voted no on single payer. Republicans all voted no on the version of the ACA that passed. They explicitly want pure privatized healthcare.
Don’t be stupid. People chose the system we have. The ability to prevent senseless deaths of good people is now and has always been in the hands of voters.
And where’s the prison for the CEOs that kill thousands with a pen stroke? It seems like people are appalled by a person looking a rich person but don’t show nearly that level of concern for all the people he’s let die. Or hell, every other murder in NY that year.
People literally voted for the privatized healthcare party. Whenever somebody dies as a result the blood is on the hands of tens of millions of people.
Not all people voted for it. Also, if you think that healthcare was a deciding topic I would disagree strongly. The party for voted in by being anti woke and anti immigrants.
Did you refer to yourself in the third person?
If you read drag’s profile, it says that drag’s pronoun in all grammatical persons is “drag” so technically, even using the word “you” to address drag is incorrect, you should be saying “Did drag refer to dragself in the thidr person?”
Whether you want to go along with it is up to you
I can’t see it in Voyager and have to go to the website in my browser :/
Hope they add bio support soon
No. Drag has first person neopronouns.
I support y… uh, drag. I support drag.
/Update%2034/77-image089.png)
5th
Zerg sides with Drag on this.
Just because something is legal, it’s not necessarily ethical and vice versa.
“Adjustment” is creating accountability by other means.
A very weak response, and several days late. Not impressed.
Awesome response. I do not hold any grudges against the early over-moderation that took place. It is truly a sensitive subject. However, I feel allowing free speech (within reason) in a situation like this is important for both sides (the Bourgeoisie and all of us poors) as it gives us a chance to vent some pent up steam and it hopefully gives them an insight into how close things are to getting out of control and give them a chance to correct some bad behaviors.
Divisive topic and comment section, but IMO that feels like a fair change. No stance on this topic will ever not be divisive, but I think this is probably the most impartial stance that could be taken
To the people saying they are switching instances:
Shouldnt you have switched a long time ago or just never joined the biggest instance?
Is there any negative to not having or any positive to having a big instance like lemmy.world?
Why not have lemmy.usa where americans can freely discuss the american solution to every american problem aka guns?
