Earlier, after review, we blocked and removed several communities that were providing assistance to access copyrighted/pirated material, which is currently not allowed per Rule #1 of our Code of Conduct. The communities that were removed due to this decision were:

We took this action to protect lemmy.world, lemmy.world's users, and lemmy.world staff as the material posted in those communities could be problematic for us, because of potential legal issues around copyrighted material and services that provide access to or assistance in obtaining it.

This decision is about liability and does not mean we are otherwise hostile to any of these communities or their users. As the Lemmyverse grows and instances get big, precautions may happen. We will keep monitoring the situation closely, and if in the future we deem it safe, we would gladly reallow these communities.

The discussions that have happened in various threads on Lemmy make it very clear that removing the communites before we announced our intent to remove them is not the level of transparency the community expects, and that as stewards of this community we need to be extremely transparent before we do this again in the future as well as make sure that we get feedback around what the planned changes are, because lemmy.world is yours as much as it is ours.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

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

Please don't misunderstand. Even the government (US, in my case) doesn't have unrestricted free speech, and that's a good thing. We agree here. I even would say that the line as it is currently set in America is "too broad" and that we need to tweak it down a bit. We fail to acknowledge that stochastic terrorism is a thing, in our speech laws, and it essentially makes it completely legal to do as long as you remain sufficiently coded/vague.

If you don't mind humoring me one more time, feel free to weigh in on my questions, again, but assuming the quotes were both made in context; that is to say, JFK quote for a scenario where peaceful revolution was being restricted, and four boxes (which, in my mind, comes a little too close to the line) in a scenario where people were losing their ability to weigh in on their government actions via speech, voting, and juries.

I can't seem to articulate, even to myself, why the JFK quote is generally (in my mind) considered non-violent, but the four boxes one (again, in my mind) is more threatening. I'm hoping random internet polling will lead to some insight. haha

[–] Agamemnon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

No problem, it's nice to have a level-headed exchange amidst an ongoing tornado of sewage :)

So, I can try to empathize with either side (mods and users) for each of the two quotes, and there might be scenarios where one is completely right and one is wrong. But as an outsider to the kind of debates where these quotes are commonly used, I simply don't have the cultural understanding to help much with answering your question. Sorry.

Drawing the arch back to my initial statement: There are several levels of escalation present between utilising famous people quotes to make a general point and trying to dodge around community rules by veiling direct threats to a specified (inferred from context) group. I am of the opinion that the guillotine-comment I replied to is definitely stepping over the line and only remains standing, because right now additional enforcement of rules is (probably) not going to improve the weather situation mentioned above.