Hello World,

following feedback we have received in the last few days, both from users and moderators, we are making some changes to clarify our ToS.

Before we get to the changes, we want to remind everyone that we are not a (US) free speech instance. We are not located in US, which means different laws apply. As written in our ToS, we’re primarily subject to Dutch, Finnish and German laws. Additionally, it is our discretion to further limit discussion that we don’t consider tolerable. There are plenty other websites out there hosted in US and promoting free speech on their platform. You should be aware that even free speech in US does not cover true threats of violence.

Having said that, we have seen a lot of comments removed referring to our ToS, which were not explicitly intended to be covered by our ToS. After discussion with some of our moderators we have determined there to be both an issue with the ambiguity of our ToS to some extent, but also lack of clarity on what we expect from our moderators.

We want to clarify that, when moderators believe certain parts of our ToS do not appropriately cover a specific situation, they are welcome to bring these issues up with our admin team for review, escalating the issue without taking action themselves when in doubt. We also allow for moderator discretion in a lot of cases, as we generally don’t review each individual report or moderator action unless they’re specifically brought to admin attention. This also means that content that may be permitted by ToS can at the same time be violating community rules and therefore result in moderator action. We have added a new section to our ToS to clarify what we expect from moderators.

We are generally aiming to avoid content organizing, glorifying or suggesting to harm people or animals, but we are limiting the scope of our ToS to build the minimum framework inside which we all can have discussions, leaving a broader area for moderators to decide what is and isn’t allowed in the communities they oversee. We trust the moderators judgement and in cases where we see a gross disagreement between moderatos and admins’ criteria we can have a conversation and reach an agreement, as in many cases the decision is case-specific and context matters.

We have previously asked moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification when this was suggested in context of murder or other violent crimes. Following a discussion in our team we want to clarify that we are no longer requesting moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification in the context of violent crimes when the crime in question already happened. We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence, which is violating our terms of service.

As always, if you stumble across content that appears to be violating our site or community rules, please use Lemmys report functionality. Especially when threads are very active, moderators will not be able to go through every single comment for review. Reporting content and providing accurate reasons for reports will help moderators deal with problematic content in a reasonable amount of time.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    16 days ago

    But I like math. And I know that sometimes a -1 gives you positive values.

    It’d sure be nice if this guy’s death would result in fewer people being denied life saving care for spurious reasons, but I’m definitely not holding my breath

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      Oh I bet it has helped at least a few. It won’t be long lasting, but some adjusters will have this pop into their head when they’re considering denying coverage for something they know they shouldn’t, and it might help influence them to make the right call.

    • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 days ago

      Already has in a sense, looking at the Blue Cross Blue Shield anesthesia rollback.

      If that’s where it stops, maybe we’ll see a trend with deposing CEOs of malicious organizations.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      If things get better for a week while the insurance companies try to hide from the fallout, hundreds of lives will be saved or made measurably better.

      If one harmful CEO’s murder makes society better for a week…

      I’d be banned for finishing that sentence.

    • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      I mean, if it were to become a trend, I’m sure we might see some sort of results. (Hopefully this is within the spirit of the new ToS.)

    • Arbiter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      His death alone won’t change anything, what will change this is something that violates TOS to mention.

    • kshade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      Yeah, because a CEO is ultimately just another employee in shareholder capitalism. If the shareholders want more money, and of course they do, things will continue as usual after this brief, unplanned change on the board. I’d fully expect anesthesia not being covered to happen too, just not right now, they’ll wait for marketing to says it’s safe in a couple months.