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.
Is that an “implied” death threat?
It’s not. Where are you going with this argument?
Precisely nowhere-- I have seen that quote get people banned for advocating violence, and I think that’s pretty crazy; I semi-randomly ask people who moderate this question. I promise there’s no gotcha here.
What about a “Four Boxes” reference?
I had to look up what that even is, because I haven’t encountered that one before. (me not being US-American)
I cannot make a call on a reference to a quote brought forth on an unspecified subject without context.
In regards to JFK - yes that would count as advocating violence in a very generalised sense. But without context, again, I am not able to make a call, whether a ban on someone making the quote is justified or not. In general, moderation policy also falls under freedom of expression. Consequently, freedom of speech is not a claimable right against non-governmental agents. It’s a thing that a lot of people seem to selectively overlook when advocating for what would actually be better described as “Anarchy of speech”.
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
