• Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Not a single mention of discrimination because it doesn’t say anything about religion/race/gender/etc. It needs to specify this to be a rule about discrimination.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        While I don’t think it would be unwarranted, it’s also not specifically necessary. They can interpret that line to mean anything they want. It’s a volunteer run, privately hosted reddit clone. It doesn’t need to be as intricate as US law (which I not sure why that’s “baseline” for anything).

        • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          It doesn’t need to be as intricate as US law (which I not sure why that’s “baseline” for anything).

          IMHO it would be better if it was as intricate as Roman law. Because while the wording might be intricate, all you need to know if something is allowed, disallowed, or required is to simply look at the law.

          In the mean time, “esoteric” law systems like common law expect you to look at the precedents. That works in real life due to huge bureaucratic apparatus and recording old cases, but for a simple internet forum you won’t get it.

          EDIT: my point is that trying to make something “too simple” will bite you back later on, with even more complexity.

  • simple@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I’m pretty sure the ToS only exists for legal reasons, don’t make a big deal out of this. It doesn’t mean the admins won’t ban people for discrimination. Nothing suggests their stance has changed.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      If it’s not a big deal then it shouldn’t be too hard to mention you can’t discriminate against someone’s religion/race/gender/etc.

      These things are a big enough deal they need to be removed but suddenly “it’s not a big deal” when people want them back.

      • simple@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        A) They weren’t removed, this is a new document

        B) As other comments mention, discrimination and harassment is covered in section 5

        C) Consider messaging the admins about it rather than push the alert button and causing needless drama

    • HEISENBERG@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s always the same trolls. Who would read the ToS and say “ok guess racism is back on the table”.

    • HardlightCereal@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I can’t see any history discussing the change before today, but the posts from before today also seem to be more inclusivity-minded than this one. Maybe it’s just a huge oversight and they forgor. But it’s definitely not a nice look. The new rules also say you’re not allowed to report content for things that aren’t a violation of the terms of service. So if you report a content for being racist, that’s against the rules.