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)
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)
… what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the service’s comms?
Is it impossible to make use of the service unless you’re a user signed up on the service?
If so, should it be regarded that admins have no authority to bar any user from another instance from the admin’s instance?
They’re not making use of the service, though. That’s a misunderstanding. They’re making use of their home servers copy of the other servers community. The user isn’t directly using the remote service.
It’d be like having two email companies, one only allowing over 18s to have an account. You wouldn’t say you’re making use of the other email service if you send an email to them. You’re not beholden to their ToS or CoC. Same applies here imo.
What happens when a user posts to that comm?
Does that user’s post remain only on their home server’s copy of the comm, or does it get federated to the comm they posted to?
That’s irrelevant. The post wasn’t made via lemmy.zip. we have a copy of the post but the user didn’t interact at all with our website or our server. Their server did, not the user. Again, email. If I have an Outlook account and send an email to a Gmail account, I’m not suddenly subject to the Gmail ToS.
Otherwise I’d set up my own email and say anyone that emailed me had to pay me a million bananas as part of my ToS.
Fucking what.
If I write a poem and have someone slap it on the local bulletin board for me, have I not interacted with the bulletin board?
Furthermore, elsewhere you mention interacting as not being accessing (specifically mentioning that ‘interacting’ only has the CoC applied), but here you claim a lack of interaction as reason for non-enforcement of the ToS.
Bruh, that’s literally how it works. Why do you think email accounts from other services can be banned from sending to email services? Gmail can (and literally does) run a blocklist, however ineffective, of email accounts from other email services for violating their ToS.
I honestly don’t know what you’re on about at this point.
You’re confusing a code of conduct which is applied to everyone with a terms of service, which i can only apply to people I offer a service to. I don’t hold your data, I can’t delete your account or prevent you from accessing your home server. I am not providing you a service in any way. It’s really that simple.
Your email thing is wrong btw. Emails can be banned (conduct) by another server, but the account can’t be deleted by the other server (service). You’re confusing the two.
Like hosting their content?
Content like text posts?
Content that goes and is hosted on your servers when a user is federated and not banned from your instance?
See above
How does any of that preclude providing a service?
… okay? .world hasn’t ‘deleted’ the account in question? So either you’re very confused about what has happened here, or your attempt at reconciling the email metaphor with your position has proved my point.
Let me go over this again for you.
When you joined lemmy.world, you agreed to their ToS. I have not joined lemmy.world, therefore their ToS does not apply to me. They owe me nothing, and cannot delete my account nor any of my users from lemmy.zip. they can ban my users from lemmy.world, remove their posts etc, but they’re only doing that to their copies of the posts. The original copies are on lemmy.zip and lemmy.worlds actions do not affect any other instances that has a copy of the lemmy.zip original.
Therefore they do not provide my users with a service. If lemmy.world shut down tomorrow, lemmy.zip users would still have service while lemmy.world users would not.
Similarly a website i have never been to might have a ToS, but I have not agreed to that ToS, therefore it cannot apply to me. Said website is not providing me a service.
So we’ve established who is providing who a service in this scenario, which is lemm.ee providing a service to their user. That user isn’t using lemmy.world, therefore isn’t receiving a service and isn’t beholden to their ToS.
Lemmy.world have banned that user from their website because the user is saying their under 18. But they claim to have done this because in their ToS they say they don’t provide a service to under 18s. But that user has not agreed to the ToS.
While lemmy.world is entitled to do whatever they want imo, it’s their website, to say it’s because of their ToS is incorrectly applying it. They aren’t providing a service to the user. Lemm.ee is.
Again, they can do whatever they want, it’s their website, but its not how it applies to lemmy.zip. If I was to enact that policy, it would be under the code of conduct as that is what is applied to moderation of remote instances.
Except if you access Lemmy.world, as the ToS point out.
… okay? How is any of that relevant?
This is like saying “I only made you a poster; I didn’t suck your dick or do your taxes, so I didn’t provide you a service.”
You… really need to talk with a lawyer, man. I know Lemmy admins are amateurs, but this is insane.
deleted by creator
Using lemmy.word to access content. Using https://feddit.uk/post/25339637 to view the content is making use of feddit.uk’s services, using https://lemmy.world/post/26548121 is making use of lemmy.world’s services. Would using an archive to access a lemmy.world post be making use of the service?
I wouldn’t say so, even going to lemmy.world without an account would be making use of the service in my mind.
No? Community spaces can still have rules that govern themselves (that’s why sidebars federate), it’s just that terms of service are for people making use of the service.
Can you post to Lemmy.world using an archive?
If not, the question seems of dubious relevance.
But going to Lemmy.world with an account isn’t making use of the service, so long as it’s not a .world account?
But if no user from another instance is ever using any of the instances they post to, save for their own, how can an admin have the right to ban them?
Federation between instances is like an archive in a state of flux. You can still access feddit.de content despite the service being down.
They didn’t go to lemmy.world with an account? They went to https://lemm.ee/c/[email protected] with a lemm.ee account. For my comment to reach you, it has to go through Cloudfair as lemmy.world uses them for DDoS protection. Am I subject to Cloudfair’s TOS?
It’s perfectly within lemmy.world’s remit to ban a user for whatever reasons they feel like, I just don’t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.
You aren’t answering the question about posting content.
Okay, well, they can still go there, it’s just that their content no longer federates to lemmy.world. I guess everyone should be happy?
That’s not even close to equivalent. If the ToS for dbzer0 included, say, something ridiculous, like “Don’t use the letter S”, and you used the letter S, would you posting here be a violation of the ToS, or not? Regardless of whether you think the ToS is reasonable.
If ToS aren’t going to be enforced, you may as well not have them.
IDK, its kinda like lemm.ee making the post on behalf of him.
It won’t federate to anyone, it’s the Group actor that forwards content to subscribers.
I think it is actually. If posting to lemmy.world comm, who then forwards that content to comm subs, makes me a user of lemmy.world’s service, then I don’t see how I wouldn’t be a user of Cloudfair’s services in that case. I’ve still technically initiated an interaction with Cloudfair servers, even if indirectly.
Well no, I’m not a dbzer0 user so I don’t think I’m subject to their TOS. If it was in the comm or instance rules, then I’d be violating those, but TOS is for users of the service.
Where are you getting the idea that I’m saying TOS shouldn’t be enforced? I’m not saying that, I’m disputing who it applies to.
Okay. So again, what’s the problem? Everyone should be happy.
Because Cloudflare’s whole deal is that they provide a service to sites, not users.
Humor me for a moment - if you go to a website, directly, do you have to abide by their terms of service?
You said, and I quote:
No one on lemmy.world will see anything Sag posts, ~ 1/3 of all Lemmy users. Not the end of the world, but it can be demotivating.
No, a TOS is a contract, you have to agree to it to be subject to it.
Remote user, i.e. someone who’s account isn’t on lemmy.world. Local accounts on lemmy.world should still be subject to the TOS.
The problem remains that the second lemmy.world allows content created by someone underage to federate onto their server, they probably have some legal responsibility regarding that data. And if there is personal information in there, it gets tricky pretty fast in some jurisdictions.
LW don’t want legal problems, that’s literally all there is to this.
Whether LW can enforce their ToS on remote users is a different question, and even if the answer to that is “no” then they could still include that clause in every single LW community’s rules.
https://lemmy.world/comment/15592014