Lemmy.world removes its rules against discrimination

Comments

• simple@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I’m pretty sure the ToS only exists for legal reasons, don’t make a big deal out of this.

  source

  • Geert@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • quinten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Lemmy Silver

      source
  • redballooon@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Then why the change?

    source

    • simple@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Nothing was changed, it’s a new document.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • BolexForSoup@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source

    • simple@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    How would a user of an internet forum exhibit discrimination?

    source
• ech@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

  source

  • Geert@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yes but what about black lesbians? They are cool to harass right? It’s not literally explained in the document so it must be!

    source

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Have never read a discrimination clause before? You don’t have to list literally ever combination. This is ignorant at its most charitable interpretation.

      source
    • Boiglenoight@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      HEAR HERE! (I DON’T KNOW WHICH ONE TO USE WHEN SHOUTING THIS EXPRESSION IN SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING)

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • BolexForSoup@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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. Even the US federal government - which is the base line - has this spelled out.

    source

    • ech@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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).

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Rule 5 covers discrimination.

  source

  • BolexForSoup@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    There isn’t a single mention of discrimination in rule 5.

    source
• RickRussell_CA@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  What would "discrimination" look like in a reddit-link link sharing service?

  I'm not even sure what word would imply in a discussion forum. It usually applies to things like wages, job opportnities, access, etc.

  source

  • Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Your name is rick and you are canadian!!! Downvotedd!!!

    source

    • RickRussell_CA@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      California, actually. Although that's probably worse.

      I would proudly stink of back-bacon and maple syrup, if given the opportunity.

      source
• Steve@communick.news ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Doesn’t discrimination need to be allowed so the site can ban people for things without breaking their own rules?

  Banning in one way or annother is kind of the definition of discrimination.

  source

  • clueless_stoner@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    breaking their own rules

    While banning people? Impossible

    source
  • decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Are you the same people that say that by banning fascists you’re also becoming fascist?

    source

    • Steve@communick.news ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Hey! Fascists are more than just banning things, you know.

      source
• DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Was there any discussion about this change? Or is this it.

  source

  • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source

    • Geert@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      So if you report a content for being racist, that’s against the rules.

      If that is what you make of it than you’re either playing dumb or you know, not pretending

      source

      • -> View More Comments