https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39616364?scrollToComments=true
https://lemmy.world/u/[email protected]
https://lemmy.world/modlog/?userId=1957570
Underage, you will be unbanned when you turn 18 (happy birthday in advance)
You admitted to violating ToS, soooo…. Yeah. YDI.
Moving forward, know that your choices are:
- Be dishonest with your age
- Don’t tell anyone abut your age
- Read the rules of the instance prior to using it.
did he though? He just posted to a community there from lemm.ee . He didn’t agree to the ToS
He didn’t agree to the ToS
He didn’t even bother to read it. Which is why he ended up getting banned. You don’t get to waive out of a speeding ticket just because you didn’t bother to read the speed limit signs.
If I didn’t bother to read the rules of an instance, and then got my shit removed because I violated those rules, I’d just accept that I made an error and walk away.
So…
I stand by my YDI.
But, he never signed up to the instance. He made a post from another instance, which got federated to .world.
And if you check their comment history, you’ll see that they post in .world quite frequently.
The ToS specifically says:
By using the website, you represent that you are at least 18
Since the post just federated to a lemmy world comm, they didn’t access the website at all.
Holy shit how do you not understand this?
Tell me that if you owned and operated an instance that doesn’t allow NSFW content, that you’d do nothing at all if I posted porn to it from an account that was hosted on a different instance…
Or would I have to follow the rules of your instance regardless of what my home instance is?
TOS ≠ RULE
A terms of service is a legal agreement between a user and the host. The user in this case did not access lemmy.world and is not their user, so cannot be bound by the ToS. The same way you cannot be forced into an optional legal agreement that you haven’t read or seen.
There is no question that the lemmy.world admins can ban someone from their site if they wish to, but claiming its for a violation of ToS is completely incorrect. The lemmy.world admin in this case decided to arbitrarily ban someone because they say they’re under 18, even though there is no legal consideration for lemmy.world here.
Can they do this? Yes. It’s their site. But they are incorrect to refer to their ToS for this ban, because the user is not bound by this.
The action taken was outside of any stated lemmy.world policy on moderation.
Their terms of service state that you must be of a certain age to use their instance. It’s not a sign-able agreement. It’s the terms of their service. It’s their rules. As in… the TERMS of their service. Using their instance is the agreement.
Besides… if they want- they can just ban you for whatever reason they choose. So, whether your nitpicking of the definition of Terms of Service is correct or not, the point remains.
I’ll tell you what though, if you think you have a case… go ahead and offer to represent them in a lawsuit. See how far that flies. But I’m going to guess that there is no legal precedent that states they have a right to post whatever they want wherever they want- regardless of the Terms of Service.
It absolutely is a signable agreement, you agreed to it when you signed up to lemmy.world 🤦♂️ you even have to specifically type that you agree these days, I believe.
And yes, by using the website you agree to it - except (as i and others have to keep pointing out) the user did not use lemmy.worlds website at any point. That isn’t how federation works. To suggest it does is just ignorance of the topic.
Yes, we agree that they can ban them for any reason they choose, that’s not up for debate, but they cannot apply a clause from their terms of service and specifically cite their terms of service, because it doesn’t apply to the remote user.
The largest lemmy instance should be held to account for their actions (as should any lemmy instance). The admin didn’t even have to state a reason for the ban, but by saying its the ToS they’ve invalidated their action. It’s not rocket science if you take two minutes to understand how federation and ToS works.
Check their comment history. They post in .world VERY often.
This isn’t up for debate. They violated the rules. They may have a different home instance, but they post in .world. That- according to the rules, violates the ToS of .world.
I don’t get how this isn’t getting through to you, but I honestly don’t care to keep explaining it.
Dude was banned. You’re gong to have to learn how to be okay with that.
No, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how federation works.
The user is on lemm.ee. When they make a post, they’re posting to a local copy of the community, and never directly onto the server. Thats not how federation works and so your points are all totally invalid.
At no point does the user ever make contact themselves with that external server. They never physically touch lemmy.world in their actions, everything they do is on lemm.ee, and so lemm.ee’s Terms of Service is the one that applies to the user.
As has already been hashed out multiple times, Lemmy.world’s ToS is not relevant here and does not apply to an external user.
This is totally up for debate, and you don’t understand it. That’s fine, learn from people who do know and take it with some humility.
Oh and if you still don’t get why its important and how wrong you are - if you were right, then every single post you make is federated to thousands of different fedi servers. Suddenly, you would be legally in contract with all those thousands of servers and their ToS. Imagine if I put in mine that users have to pay a small sum of currency for every post that they make on my server. In your incorrect definition, you would be liable for that just like lemmy.world have applied their ToS against someone who isn’t one of their users.
What lemmy.world should do is update their moderation policies/code of conduct/whatever to specifically say that they will ban you if they suspect you are under 18. Its such an easy fix. This never had to be so wrong in the first place.
Besides… if they want- they can just ban you for whatever reason they choose. So, whether your nitpicking of the definition of Terms of Service is correct or not, the point remains.
That’s just PTB
I am not using their service. I used copy of their community. Holy Shit, lots of user don’t know how TOS works.
It’s totally wild how many people who don’t understand it are trying to weigh in with their incorrect opinion.
I know it’s a very specific point this centres around, being that the ToS doesn’t apply to you, but it needs debate and discussion so mistakes like this don’t happen in the future.
Rhoeri is rather infamous for being wrong but acting smug and like they’re right the entire time.
This is just another bulk common L from them if you know them at all.
So they banned an under age user from only their instance for the exact amount of time until they become old enough to be a legitimate user on their instance?
Man I want Reddit mod drama back. Where’s I was banned for sleeping with my step mod?!?
Yeah, it seems a little odd to do a full ban for anyone under 18. Do they feel that all communities on there are not appropriate for minors?
Afaik, there are laws and regulations that make it more difficult to collect personal information about minors including their email address. I imagine the admins understandably just don’t want to deal with that.
That’s not really relevant in this case though, federated profiles don’t contain any of that information. They just contain the public posts and comments and anything the person might have added to their profile bio directly. They don’t contain personal information of any kind.
That’s a fair point that I have not considered. It’s much easier to claim ignorance as an instance admin, if said user did not spill they were underage. It’s indeed far more likely that they do not mind, but if the evidence is clear as day, they can not ignore it anymore either.
Yes and I fully agree. Online interactions are unrated by PEGI for a reason.
Good. Minors shouldn’t be on the internet. They should be reading books and going outside.
I was a minor on the internet once, and it ruined me. I’m horribly addicted to screens.
Banning minors just incentivises them to lie about their age.
I’ve seen Things as a minor online. There were formative in the worst ways
I think I have the reasonability to just stay away from those.
Seeing beheadings fucked with me. Then I was shoved down the alt-right pipeline during gamergate and it took until I was nearly 18 to actually internally reflect and improve as a person. I still have issues with the black and white thinking that was so heavily emphasized. I’m working on it but its hard.
Seeing beheadings fucked with me.
I remember when that shit was going around during the iraq surge i think… i knew it was best not to see that.
@[email protected] Is it the responsibility of gmail to make sure that people on other mail services don’t break their TOS?
Isn’t that the whole point of email being federated?
It’s always a bit surprising when people reply from Misskey or Mastodon, I feel like I have to answer while they just comment generally
@[email protected] I started making “lists” of lemmy communities on sharkey, because lemmy still doesn’t have the feature.
I think an 18+ rule for an instance that allows porn or federates with porn instances is reasonable. And when you interact with another instance’s communities, you are beholden to their rules. And the admin who did it said they’re talking about changing the rule. So it’s not like they’re just trying to be dicks.
So… I’m going to go with admins did what they had to, sag learned a tiny lesson about not giving people more information than they needed. I don’t want to say YDI, though.
Oh Reddit have 13+ requirement and have porn on it. You can lie about your age.
And the trick to lying is not telling the truth.
But what if you’re lying and the trick is to tell the truth?
That is a kind of shitty response from World and seems a little condescending to me, but tone is difficult. You are welcome here and I would rather you stay and interact with the rest of us than leave the fediverse. Your voice matters and I didn’t have the same outlets when I was your age.
Right… What are we trying to protect the kid here from…
If he knows how to use fedi prolly already using Linux too… Anyone with Linux skills will figure a way around anything online tbh
Oh Yea I use Linux it’s even in Profile xD
If he knows how to use [fediverse sites][, he is] prolly already using Linux too… Anyone with Linux skills will figure a way around anything online [to be honest.]
Yes, the same as if I lock a door someone breaking the rules will just climb in a window, and that should somehow be okay but isn’t.
That’s how the internet works…
I think it’s less about protecting the kid but about liability. You can just enter under 18, but they have to do something when you boast about it. It’s not as if check your ID.
What’s the liability? Tiktok and faceberg permits teenagers to use their websites and nothing ever happened to them.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/15/tech/tiktok-fine-europe-children/index.html
It’s the reason zucc and co want to destroy europe.
to recommend content like videos and posts could “exploit the weaknesses and inexperience” of children and stimulate “addictive behaviour.” It’
Are you suggesting that Lemmy instances are engaged in behaviour like this?
Do you have evidence?
There’s porn and violence and other adult content on Lemmy instances.
You gotta follow the law of your target countries or youll end up in the dark net.
The links were to disprove your claim nobody is holding them accountable.
There’s porn and violence and other adult content on Lemmy instances.
Like there is in movies, TV, art, history, and other websites.
There’s porn and violence and other adult content on Lemmy instances.
So nothing then…
You gotta follow the law of your target countries or youll end up in the dark net.
Everyone follows the law… How is permitting a teenager to use a public message board violates the law?
ptb
but…
I think it’s great that we can expect actual rules and enforcement from instance admins, and have a chance to suss out the edges of these rules in open fora.
Hey, I want your opinion on this matter. As you are currently admin of lemm.ee. Is my ban reasonable or just stupid? Whatever you will say I wil go with it.
If you don’t mind. I know you are currently busy becauae of new wave of user. Sorry and Thanks
I’m not sure why .world has the 18 age requirement - AFAIK GDPR only requires 16+ if you don’t specifically ask for parental consent. Of course, there is the matter of pornography etc, but for example Reddit allows 13+ users, and all they do for pornography is show an NSFW warning, which Lemmy also has (although this is a good point - maybe the NSFW toggle should be improved to explicitly ask users to confirm their age on Lemmy as well, similarly to how it works on Reddit).
But at the end of the day, each instance is free to create whatever rules and processes they want, and to ban people according to those rules. I would say that .world admins are probably just trying to do their best in enforcing their rules, and unfortunately that means that most likely you’ll be cut off from .world for the next 5 months 🫤
Please stay with us 😶
Most of the user on .world if they can’t even see my post what is point of posting :(
There is still lots of people on other instances - and this could push people off .world.
The other person suggested an alt without telling anyone, Ssems like the best outcome, really. That way LW can keep a blind eye to the thing, and your posts on your alts wouldn’t be banned from LW
I’m afraid .world users will also miss out on your mod actions in all of your communities, which is a particularly unfortunate side-effect.
I don’t think it’s the end of the world (:P), though - .world is a big instance, but there are still tons of users on other instances. I mean, even in your communities, I don’t think .world is not making up the majority of activity.
That’s a really problematic choice in the software. Mod actions should not be excluded/ignored even when a remote user is site banned, that can create dangerous situations for your server by allowing all mod actions to federate but not to your server. It just seems like a problem waiting to happen.
You can always just make a fresh account (and don’t tell anybody)
PTB. This is unreasonable. Also trying to prevent teenagers from accessing the internet is just going to lead to all teenagers just lying about their age. It’s not going to stop it. It’s just going to mean they can’t discuss their actual opinions and issues honestly. It would also reinforce the need to lie to be part of culture, which is just not healthy.
Teenagers lying about their age on the internet is as old as teenagers on the internet.
Keeping the age barriers in place is good anyway. It communicates to younger people clearly that the content is not considered suitable for them. It gives them a moment to think and reconsider.
Participating in online culture might be generally not healthy for adults as well.
I hope you’re independently wealthy and can afford legal fees.
What’s most important is that you got to feel smug.
What’s most important is that you got to feel smug.
What’s most important is not having every fucking instance other than .world hanging from a legal thread. Isn’t your instance based in the E fucking U? That’s not exactly the wild fucking west as far as legal requirements for hosts go.
Believe it or not, I don’t want any of this shit going down. I’m not fucking 20, I’m not full of vim and vigor. I don’t get a fucking thrill out of fighting with people online anymore. I question why I stay in these communities when everyone seems content to play chicken on the railroad tracks.
I don’t get a fucking thrill out of fighting with people online anymore.
lol
I don’t get a fucking thrill out of fighting with people online anymore.
I find this hard to believe
I find this hard to believe
I find it tedious and miserable. I engage for the same reason I can’t leave trash on the floor - the inaction irritates me more than the tedious action. If I find trash on the floor constantly in a public area, I’m more likely to leave than become a super-cleaner.
… bye, I guess.
That’s literally the only reason he does it, otherwise he would’ve stopped a long time ago.
after two decades of unfettered internet access, I still love picking fights.
maybe I’m just built different
Man, that constant “I’m the only adult in the room” vibe you try to have is getting
obnoxiousold.Man, that constant “I’m the only adult in the room” vibe you try to have is getting
obnoxiousold.Yeah, I fucking agree. It’s getting real old being the only adult in the room. I didn’t realize the admins of most Lemmy instances were just winging it, thinking “Well, when it comes crashing down, it comes crashing down 😊”
Utter zero-foresight techbro shite. Jesus Christ.
Sadly You’re not the real adult in the room. You’re just a smuglord who’s way too high on the smell of their own farts.
Sadly You’re not the real adult in the room. You’re just a smuglord who’s way too high on the smell of their own farts.
Legit, I thought you took your instance more seriously than this. This is basic covering-your-ass shit.
Gonna go against the grain here and say YDI.
As others have mentioned, liability. The hosts of Lemmy instances are doing an incredible service enabling us to use this platform for free. And in providing that service, they are also assuming a significant amount of risk in a rather volatile legal environment. The law views a platform that allows (“targets”) minors very differently from one that is intended only for adults.
Additionally, TOS. Its as simple as that. This is not power tripping, this is just enforcement. Even if there was nothing explicity wrong about the behavior, once age is directly mentioned, liability is opened, and their hands are tied.
As a side note, there is nothing wrong with adult-only community spaces. Sometimes I want to have a discussion without worrying about whether the person on the other end is a literal child - there are enough adults that act like children as it is…
“The law discriminates against and limits the freedom of children, therefore they’re totally justified!”
Yeah ok sure
Wrong way around. The law enforces more protections for children than adults, for which platforms are held to a higher standard.
Specifically, I’m talking about the higher standards for data privacy, user tracking, and content moderation. These are things that are trivial for large companies to implement, but would be a huge hurdle for small teams of unpaid volunteers.
Many people would like you to believe that, the reality is that these laws are designed to keep children away from support networks and just further enforce the idea of parents owning their children. They use these same garbage excuses when talking about children and HRT or puberty blockers, and trying to block trans kids from getting these treatments. They call that “protection” as well.
Things aren’t as they say they are. People aren’t honest about their motives. If that’s new to you, wake up, it’s 2025 people have been lying about the real reasons for decades, it’s not and never has been a new concept.
You make some good points. I agree there are a lot of traditional ideals engrained in our justice system that enforce archaic power structures and perpetuate harm onto vulnerable people. And you’re right, people often use “protecting the children” as an excuse to take more and more rights away from the general populace.
That said, I still don’t think its productive to direct that frustration and anger at a volunteer moderator on a free, nonprofit platform.
I’m glad we agree on the part out our rights being suppressed and taken away, though I don’t agree that they shouldn’t feel the heat from their actions. People who claim to be our allies and support us but capitulate to their own fear of something bad happening and oppressing us, are not real allies, and they need to be held accountable and called out for it.
They aren’t even really doing this for liability they’re doing it out of misguided fear and going above and beyond. They are preemptively choosing to be collaborators. Their choice I guess, but they chose yield to fear, they don’t get to choose not to get heat and callouts for it, and I’m glad people are giving them shit for it.
For real, this type of apologia is downright disgusting.
Just for clarity, are you saying that all rules and regulation which discriminate against young people are inherently bad? e.g. banning them from consuming tobacco, having gambling adverts placed on their shows or being allowed in nightclubs?
The fact that you’re even comparing being on Lemmy or probably also Puberty blockers and HRT to Booze and tobacco shows your motives transparently. Maybe instead of making bad faith comparisons to things that have nothing to do with each other you should actually be thinking of the kids who are hurt by the idea of parents owning kids. Like abused children, or trans kids.
I literally just asked to clarify your position, that you chose to project transphobia onto me from that says more about you than me.
The fact that you are comparing access to spaces like Lemmy to drugs, alcohol, and tobacco says enough about your motives to let me know that any further discussion with you is fruitless. You’re trying to get me to say something that you could claim was implying I support kids taking drugs or alcohol so you could say that the “groomer” (me) supports giving children harmful substances. Ignoring the fact that access to spaces like Lemmy, and access to drugs and alcohol aren’t even remotely similar.
If you’re looking for someone to say it, you’ve got me here. Banning children from tobacco doesn’t stop them from getting it, banning gambling adverts won’t stop them from doing it (cereal box rewards etc) and usually find their ways into nightclubs with alcohol anyways. The only reason these laws exist are to control and subjugate children, not “for their own good.” Such paternalist thought leads to shit like children marriage and any number of different types of child abuse, cause if your kid doesn’t have any rights, what’s stopping the parent from sending their kids to conversion therapy and misgendering then every day?
Fair enough, I think its a rather bizarre take that we shouldnt try stop people who havent fully developed their reasoning capacities from harming themselves but at least you’re consistent.
Do you think that refusing to acknowledge a child’s gender identity and sending them to conversion therapy is protecting them from harm? If so, tell me. How does the act of having one’s gender identity respected cause harm?
Tell me this because you seem to believe that things like Gender affirmation and access to online spaces, are on the same level as drugs and alcohol, or you’re giving the impression that you do.
Nobody said this… There is clear harm linked to booze what is the clear harm with teenagers using Lemmy… Over let’s say tik tok?!
If LW has a tos they have to be consistent and follow it as a normal business practice for it to protect them when something goes wrong.
You waved a red flag and said I’m violating the TOS, what are you going to do about it? You volunteered this information, nobody asked you to do it.
You backed LW into a corner, and they had to apply their TOS or in a future court case they couldn’t rely on it to protect them. I.e. the prosecutor would say that LW didn’t enforce it’s TOS, here are reports of TOS violations being ignored, etc…
In many communities children’s data is treated differently, and their is a higher moderation and safety requirement for the service provider. You often see this in online services saying you have to be at least 13/16/18 to use this service, it’s because they don’t want to have to follow the special rules for children.
Wow, this comment got 7 downvotes from 2 year old accounts with no posts or comments and 4 digits in the name… That is quite the coincidence.
- https://lemmy.world/u/[email protected]
- https://lemmy.world/u/[email protected]
- https://lemmy.world/u/[email protected]
- https://lemmy.world/u/[email protected]
- https://lemmy.world/u/[email protected]
- https://sh.itjust.works/u/[email protected] (this looks like a real account, but fits the naming pattern)
- https://sh.itjust.works/u/[email protected] (this looks like a real account, but fits the naming pattern)
@[email protected] I suspect the LW accounts above share the same ip address, you might want to look into your logs for astroturfing.
Interesting
More fun tidbits 4 of those accounts were created on the same day - Cake Day 2023-08-05
??? Sounds toxic for no reason @[email protected]
Please help me understand, my above post was written earnestly. I was explaining to a user why they got a outcome they didn’t like in the community to adjudicate moderator outcomes. I presented reasoning for my rational in the comment.
How can I explain my interpretation more helpfully?
PTB, this seems really like their overstepping their bounds, @[email protected] has clarified the matter.
Unfortunately this isn’t the first time Lemmy.world has done something like this using “legal” as an excuse, and probably won’t be the last time. They’re too big so they’ll never get defederated or penalized by any server wishing to stay even remotely relevant so nothing is likely to change.
Bruh
Why we banning kids now?
What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?
😓
What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?
Fortunately I have good and supportive parents.
What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?
That’s the whole point, they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children. People are going to argue otherwise but as a trans person myself I’ve seen this and you’re not fooling anyone with your lame excuses about protecting kids. People especially those who are vulnerable need support networks, do you know how many trans kids kill themselves because they can’t get the support they need and live with abusive and controlling parents. Don’t tell me it’s to protect kids, I’m not stupid enough to buy that lie and you’re not stupid enough to think I’d buy it.
That’s the whole point[:] they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children.
I wish I had your mind-reading ability. Without that omniscient edge this looks like the weirdest bit of teen O.D.D today.
Am I supposed to feel insulted? I don’t care what some right wing troll thinks of me. Whether you like it or not, right wing politicians push for these tactics to take support networks away from vulnerable people who they believe to have ownership of.
This is the fediverse, they can sign up to any instance that will have them.
So the account on Blahaj would be able to see and interact with any community not hosted on World, World gets to stay compliant with whatever laws it needs to abide by, everybody’s happy and there’s jam for tea.
That user’s posts also wouldn’t be visible by all of LW population, so a third of the platform
That’s an issue having a more evenly distributed userbase would solve, assuming that multiple, smaller instances wouldn’t also feel bound by similar laws. You can’t eat your cake and still have it.
Blahaj allow 16+ too.
Children are not fucking chattel and I’m tired of pretending like they are.
It’s weird to confuse responsibility and mentorship with ownership.
It’s weird that you consider actions reminiscent of ownership and control, like trying to keep children away from support groups, or preventing a trans kid from expressing themselves in a way that aligns with their gender identity, responsibility or mentorship. You sound so much like a right wing troll right now, and it’s not funny or amusing.
What, are you going to say that children don’t understand their gender? That they’re confused? That all parents care for their kids and should be the only influence in their lives? It’s certainly sounds like that’s where you’re going right now.
Wierd .ee modlog doesn’t show me banned?
I think it only appears on .worlds modlog
