Hello World!

We’ve made some changes today, and we’d like to announce that our Code of Conduct is no longer in effect. We now have a new Terms of Service, in effect starting from today(October 19, 2023).

The “LAST REVISION DATE:” on the page also signifies when the page was last edited, and it is updated automatically. Details of specific edits may be viewed by following the “Page History” reference at the bottom of the page. All significant edits will also be announced to our users.

The new Terms of Service can be found at https://legal.lemmy.world/


In this post our community mods and users may express their questions, concerns, requests and issues regarding the Terms of Service, and content moderation in Lemmy.World. We hope to discuss and inform constructively and in good faith.

  • spyd3r@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    5.0.6: No visual content depicting executions, murder, suicide, dismemberment, visible innards, excessive gore, or charred bodies. No content depicting, promoting or enabling animal abuse.

    This rule needs an exception for war reporting, and posting evidence of criminal activity or police misconduct.

    • Shard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not just war reporting. There are legitmate medical discussions that can be aided by such depictions. There should be an exception made for legitimate educational images. Otherwise technically a biological textbook on dissection runs afoul of this rule.

    • Astrealix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      53
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really tbh. We don’t need to personally see that stuff — it can cause lasting trauma. Knowing it exists and who did it is enough for war reporting.

        • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          Should copy mastodon instead with content warning tags. They function similar to nsfw/nsfl filters, but instead are filled with custom text as a warning. So the same function for nsfw could get used as “movie spoilers” or something.

          • Dremor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The current spoiler tag work this way

            ... Gore
            Text or photo
            ...
            

            Unfortunately not all frontend or client support it yet.

        • Dremor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          For content the spoiler tag allows to change the title to show any string of text. You may put “NSFL” anywhere you see fit.

          But specific tags for posts would be a necessary feature for sure.

      • spyd3r@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        Citizens of free and democratic societies have a fundamental need to be informed of what is going on in the world and their communities, free of bias or censorship, so they can make informed, reality based decisions and instruct their representatives in government on how to carry out the will of the people. When you start filtering and curating peoples’ perception of reality to fit an agenda or narrative you’re talking away their agency (you tankies wouldn’t understand what that word means), and interfering with their duties as a citizen.

        • Cadenza@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I have to agree with Astrealix on this. Information should be free. But information and snuff videos are two different things. I want information. I don’t need or want to be constantly exposed to gore content. And I don’t consider myself badly informed because I didn’t see one guy chopping another guy’s head in 4K-HD.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t need or want to be constantly exposed to gore content.

            A simple blurred image until clicked would prevent that, like it currently does with NSFW content.

            I don’t need you deciding what level of gore that I am allowed to see

            • unoriginalsin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Afaraf
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              More importantly, we don’t need to be limiting the discussion of incredibly important political issues such as was just because the imagery is ugly. War is ugly, and reminding everyone of that is vitally important in preventing future wars. When we forget how ugly war truly is, we begin to allow for its glamorization. Much better for me to see the atrocities of war than for my children to experience them firsthand.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Conversely if lemmy.world hosted gore, you’d be free to go to an instance that bans it. What a non statement.

                I’m complaining about the policy. Saying I’m not allowed to complain about the policy, because that’s not what the policy says, is dumb.

                Let me make it clearer: I don’t like this section of the terms and I’d like to hear their reasoning for why they made that policy decision.

                Your reason for liking the gore ban makes no sense so I’m dismissing that as a possible reason for the admins’ decision.

        • Astrealix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          First of all, I am from Hong Kong and utterly hate the CCP and tankies. It’s frankly insulting that you would compare me to them when they consistently fight for the complete eradication of the Hong Kong identity.

          But more importantly, there’s a line to be drawn there. I agree that it is important to be informed — but you don’t need Israel tweeting photos of dead babies onto everyone’s Twitter feeds and traumatising people to be informed that babies died. You don’t need to personally witness every single gory detail of humanity’s terrible sins in order to know that things have happened. That’s what people do as a job in journalism, and they have lots of protection to make sure they’re not traumatised by it. The average Lemming doesn’t need to see that.

        • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a private instance, not a government. This is so dramatic lol. You clearly disagree with the tankies and you aren’t on their instance, right? So if you disagree with lemmy.world policies, you can just do the same.

      • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        We don’t need to personally see that stuff

        I find it difficult to understand that something should be banned because some people “don’t need” to see it. Then don’t look at it? And I’m talking specifically for war reporting now. I’m not talking for generic gore. It is war reporting. It is something that happens. By hiding it it only helps to enlarge our safe bubble and live in it. Sorry, this is not the world. If you want to live in your safe bubble it is up to you, but making it sound like the “correct way to handle reality” is wrong imo

      • mysoulishome@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree that it’s fine to make a rule against it on a privately funded instance but definitely do not agree with your line of thinking. Sometimes you can’t understand the gravity of horror without seeing it, and sometimes you must understand it to be motivated to do something about it. A little trauma of is sometimes necessary to be an informed citizen of the world.

    • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      They aren’t Reddit, they’re an instance. There’s no reason they need to allow that. That content can be for other instances.

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re an instance, they can put a rule requiring every comment to include the text “I’m a little teapot”.

          • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That doesn’t imply it would be a good rule which is what we are disagreeing about. Pointing out they CAN have a rule is irrelevant.

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              what we are disagreeing about

              In a federated system, the relevant part is each instance CAN have different rules. If you don’t like one set, or consider it “not good”, then go to an instance with a different set, or start your own.

              • systemglitch@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                “start your own”

                “start you own!”

                “Start you own start your own”

                There should be a rule that allows for violence against people who say that

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, they can. And people can point out it’s the instance owner’s choice.