TOS’s usually have a legal team go over them to prevent such eventualities. Lemmy as a whole does not really necessarily have this option and that’s at least part of the problem here. The owners and administrators have to cover the eventualities of user interaction with the site. Since this is the case, the owners and admins are using at best a layman’s understanding of the law (potentially), to cover themselves and at the same time not taking into account other factors (such as jury nullification not being a part of the laws of those jurisdictions at all).

While it is their right to do so as owners of the site, they may be in violation of the rights of other people and since they operate a site with multiple jurisdictions and that may be used by users in other countries, it is perfectly okay for the users to be upset about these changes and do with that information what they will, including making complaints about changes and discussions of changes.

Do things get better without discussion? Is that something you’ve experienced?

I think it actually goes further than that. They’re trying to protect themselves from being liable in the event that someone uses Lemmy to actually plan a crime with the intent of not being found guilty by also planning a jury nullification. And the wording doesn’t reflect that.

That implies that you know and have a layman’s understanding of the laws in that locality. This is the problem right here. Their wording is poor and they obfuscate the reasoning and don’t attach that reasoning to any laws (foreign or domestic to them or the instance). This is why people aren’t happy about the jury nullification ban.

Because what they seem to want to prevent is the active advocation or plan to nullify a jury for someone who plans to commit a crime. The problem is the way they worded it. They don’t want you or anyone to plan a violent crime together with likely jurors with the intent of getting the jury nullified on purpose so they can get away with it. But that means you can’t talk about what things might potentially be reason for jury nullification and I don’t think that’s the intent of the laws in their region or fair to users.

Either way, having the information in the above comment is important context for why someone might want to plan a crime and a jury nullification at the same time.

That’s just fucked up. This country sucks.

Yeah. I made my comment before I looked at the rest of the comments and got more context. But in theory you should be able to do that at an embassy. So I dunno.

I feel like this is what fax is for. Maybe I’m mistaken. Send it by fax and then send it by snail mail.

Fair.

Again. I’m going to stipulate that I do understand that the site owners have to deal with the fallout of that, in the event that they are private citizens and not business entities.

Section 230 in the US gives certain immunity in regards to content that is posted for social media platforms.

Provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances. <<

Meaning you can’t be held civilly liable for the actions of your users if you run a social media platform as a business. It specifically doesn’t consider social media to be a publisher and therefore not subject to the same legal restrictions as a publisher would be.

But, if the business is not US based, even if the majority of its users are American, it may or may not be decided that such an entity is subject to it (or that even if that business is subject to the laws of its locality, the US can and often has considered that immunity to hold which was not the intention (it was not intended to be used for global immunity)).

So if we flip that around, and take into consideration the natural assumptions of most users who may or may not be from the locality in question, they 1. Do not give any thought whatsoever to the owner of the social media platforms they use, and 2. Assume that any such legal action taken as a result of their personal statements or actions will only be considered in their own locality. This is human nature. I’m not defending it.

This thread and the original post are about adding clarity for users, moderators and admins of this instance. If clarity is the goal, users should be made aware of the locality under which the platform legally falls. Since we also know the average user is unlikely to have read the complete TOS, we know that having that information there at the very bottom and nowhere else means most users will not ever come across it.

Now, can we stop assuming this is just Americans messing it up for the rest, and leave the mentality behind and focus on the assumptions of anyone who might sign up here (from any country) that is not the locality of where the website is hosted or where it’s owners reside?

Nobody is asking anyone to take any risks here. I’m literally saying that the problem is that people make natural assumptions that most people are prone to, and as a result, a better way to inform them could potentially be implemented. I’m not even arguing that the owners don’t get to make the rules. I’m not sure where you got that from. That’s why I asked (not demanded).

If a mod (from say South American or Zimbabwe) was operating under the laws in their country and banned someone for content that they felt was against the law, but it was not against the law in the locality of the site or the offender, would that mod be in the right? There’s at least one comment I’ve seen on this post from a mod who felt a comment not in a community they moderate was breaking the rules and they admit their initial reaction was to ban the person before they realized that they are not the entity that should be undertaking that duty.

If clarity is important, maybe this should be considered.

That’s not what I’m assuming. The assumption isn’t that it’s the USA or any country at all. The assumption most people make is that they and their actions are covered under the laws of their locality.

But my initial comment was the one you took umbridge to. And that original comment involved it being confusing for new users. So regardless of whether there were alternatives at the time I signed up or not, and regardless of whether people will move or would choose another instance if they knew, the point that it is confusing still stands and you haven’t really successfully argued that it’s not confusing.

Also, there are other fediverse projects besides Lemmy. Perhaps I would have gone to one of those before coming to Lemmy.

If you don’t think that people naturally assume that their Internet usage will be subject to their local laws, you’re missing the point entirely. People don’t think that using the internet and making statements that are legal where they live will get them in trouble with law enforcement entities the world over and they definitely don’t think that they will get other people in trouble with local authorities in some other country. They don’t think about this at all. There is an inherent assumption being made and it’s not that the website itself is American or German or Chinese. It’s that they will be more likely to make the assumption that their conduct will be viewed through the lens they are familiar with.

If the intention is clarity then more clarity up front is always a plus.

But if they move to another instance, then the LW rules don’t apply to them anymore, so no need to change the sign up page?<<

You said it yourself. Inertia is a thing. Some people move on. Some people don’t and probably won’t.

Clarity is important if we’re talking about enforcing a TOS to comply with the law. Especially when the average Lemmy instance owner doesn’t just have a team of lawyers on retainer.

The point I’m making though is a lot of people (perhaps myself included) wouldn’t have come to lemmy.world at all if they had known that they’d be beholden to laws they had never even heard of and aren’t normally subject to in their daily lives.

I don’t think what I’m suggesting (I’m not pushing to enact the stuff I suggested) is all that unreasonable. But of course it’s not up to me, and probably not even up to the majority of Lemmy.world users.

But the .world part of the name is something of a misnomer if you consider how confusing it may be to new users, especially if this is their first foray into the fediverse.

I haven’t decided it’s worth the time to vet another instance to move to and transfer everything I have set up over to that new instance.

Though this wasn’t handled the way I would have personally handled it, I’m largely not too bothered about the changes because I’m unlikely to ever run afoul of them.

Even though I absolutely believe that karma is a thing, and you get out of the world what you put into it, at the end of the day I’m not on Lemmy (or any other platforms) to advocate for the death of people. Probably the closest I have ever gotten is saying something like “eat the rich” and that’s meant to be taken as having a healthy dose of sarcasm.

Don’t skip the bit about how many people often do not read the TOS or EULA. That’s important to what I am saying. I was literally told when asking about Lemmy instances that lemmy.world was THE recommendation for instances specifically because it was so large and active as a result. Just because there are other instances where the users are local to the locale of the instance doesn’t necessarily undermine my point since what we’re talking about is lemmy.world specifically.

And anything with a .uk or similar is more likely to be identified at first glance as being for that locale which means more of the users would naturally gravitate towards it. Like it or not lemmy.world is a jumping off point for lots of users, plenty of whom move on to other instances (some of which may be an instance more local to them).

That’s at pretty much the very bottom of the TOS and given the number of people who skim or don’t even read TOS and EULA’s (and the number of jurisdictions that have ruled they aren’t a binding agreement), I’d say something directly on the sign up page is warranted. Additionally this information is not anywhere that I can find on any sidebar or about section.

People don’t often “look” for instances specific to their locale when joining Lemmy. That’s a lot of the reason this instance is so large. I would wager that most people who are users of this instance do not know that this instance is based in Scandinavia (and Germany). I bet most of them are also unfamiliar with the laws and regulations of those countries as well.

I don’t necessarily think that the wording helps in the case of marijuana legalisation. For instance, I can absolutely argue that an instance of jury nullification in the case of a marijuana user or dealer in a state where the accused was charged before legalisation took effect but who is not being offered clemency under the new law is justified. People should be able to voice opinions. And the wording they used isn’t better for this purpose given the hypothetical I just posed or other hypotheticals I could give.

I agree that it would be. But enacting it and the methods necessary to do so are what I think the other guy is referring to.

That’s an oversimplification of both the history and the situation.

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.

I would argue that it’s certainly not clear. That’s probably part of the problem.

I have a question. Why not just specifically forbid talk involving deliberate jury nullification for the purposes of essentially helping to plan or otherwise be an accessory to a crime? Or just leave it as enacting/planning/otherwise officially endorsing criminal activity is prohibited under TOS and clarify that this type of talk about deliberately planning jury nullification for crimes committed is against TOS under this rule. That’s simple enough and wouldn’t have taken such a meandering and lengthy post. Additionally, the statement about what jurisdiction and laws this instance is subject to can be added to the TOS and the laws clarified with links to official documentation accordingly. This post is a mess.