this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
42 points (58.9% liked)

Fediverse

18310 readers
5 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ech@lemm.ee 137 points 1 year ago (2 children)

5.0.1: Before using the website, remember you will be interacting with actual, real people and communities. Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other groups of people. Every one of our users has a right to browse and interact with the website and all of its contents free of treatment such as harassment, bullying, violation of privacy or threats of violence.

[–] MrMusAddict@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago (7 children)

In my opinion this is actually better than the CoC. The only thing "missing" is the definition of which qualities you shouldn't discriminate against. But that's now generalized into "groups of people".

I still can't discriminate against people based on any qualification. Hell, I technically can't discriminate against "pineapple on pizza eaters".

[–] Xylinna@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] can@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Some day we will eradicate your kind

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By my reading of it, you can still discriminate against pineapple pizza eaters, or any other group whatsoever, you just can't harass, bully, violate their privacy or threaten them with violence. Which is fine by me, if someone wants to make a community only for ginger haired people and ban anyone they think isn't naturally ginger, that's their perogative.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was my takeaway, too, and I think it's positive. The nice thing is, if it turns out that the policy fosters behavior that's bad for the broader community, they can change it.

[–] clueless_stoner@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Of course we would, and that's also exactly why we invited users to discuss and provide feedback while launching it. It is a living document, and we hope to update and improve it periodically and consistently.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some people have given you guys a lot of flack, but I really think you're making a thoughtful, good faith effort to do things right, and I think you're doing well. There have been a couple things that I thought were the wrong decision, but (1) they've been relatively minor, and (2) they've been reasonable even if I might have chosen differently. I very much appreciate the thought that goes into running this place.

[–] clueless_stoner@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Thank you. I appreciate your sincere response, and I can assure you the rest of our team will too. Differences in decisions may naturally occur, of course, but I think being able to reason things is what matters in the end. Here's wishing you a great one.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

As it is worded you can't discriminate against nazis and racists either.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can discriminate all you want, you just can't harass, bully, violate privacy or threaten violence.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you can't read it too literally. Otherwise you also can't discriminate against "people who wrote their comment later" and so you can never stop reading the comments for fear of discriminating between "early comment writers" and "late comment writers".

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Literal is the only way these things are supposed to be read.

They could easily fix it by saying "groups (except for those that promote discrimination and/or hate such as nazis and racists)"

[–] MrMusAddict@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I just replied this to another commenter, but that's a bad faith argument. The ToS also says to not engage in illegal activity. The admonishment of Nazi's and Racists is an admonishment of illegal evil.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 9 points 1 year ago

Being a Nazi is not illegal in most jurisdictions. It certainly wasn't illegal in Nazi Germany.

[–] PM_ME_FAT_ENBIES@lib.lgbt 1 points 1 year ago

Bruh I hate to break this to you but nearly all governments are racist. Have you not heard of what the US did to black people for 300 years?

[–] clueless_stoner@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...can't discriminate against "pineapple on pizza eaters"

True ;)

[–] lemann@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like my pineapple pizzas with a bbq base 🤪 don't come after me 😂

I'll split that pizza with you.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nazis are a group of people. Republicans are a group of people. Pedophiles are a group of people.

[–] MrMusAddict@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's a bad faith argument. The ToS also says to not engage in illegal activity. The admonishment of Nazi's and Pedophiles is an admonishment of illegal evil.

Your inclusion of Republicans is a bit of an extreme juxtaposition. Feel free to admonish the individual evil views of Republicans, but to discriminate against Republicans purely for their association is rightly against ToS.

[–] lemann@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

We could do this for any group of people we don't like IMO... Doesn't make it right, regardless of how disgusting their actions may be ☹️

[–] Leperhero@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Kebab meat and pineapple, thin crust. I will fight to the death for that

[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Need some context here: is this what we removed, something that's already somewhere else, a proposed replacement, or something else?

[–] stankmut@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

That paragraph is part of the new terms and conditions document they released.