478

The Lemmy.World Terms of Service now in effect (legal.lemmy.world)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

271 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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We've made some changes today, and we'd like to announce that our Code of Conduct is no longer in effect.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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] AMillionNames 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Except that according to OP's comments elsewhere, they haven't apologized or communicated directly with them, they haven't answered their ticket, and the entries in the modlog of them doing those actions have been removed. Nothing about that looks like the actions of someone making an accident and owning up to it.

The reason that was archived hardly makes it seem like an accident:

Banned @InternetTubes

reason: disagreeing with the Terms of Service - don't worry your content is gone

https://web.archive.org/web/20231020022523/https://kbin.social/u/@[email protected]

https://web.archive.org/web/20231019235547/https://lemmy.world/modlog

OP has also pointed out that you can search for HEISENBERG in a more recent modlog and look back and see that a lot of entries have been removed, https://web.archive.org/web/20231021224842/https://lemmy.world/modlog . This is about the only thing that could seem like an accident, even if the timing does make it seem suspicious.

There's also another person joining in and making claims that seem to support that they act this way: https://lemmy.ml/comment/5060380

[+] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] AMillionNames 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

According to OP, they believe it was the same admin who's been writing the ToS because of the last comment and the ban reason although there is no direct evidence of it. They did provide a screenshot of a ticket having been made in mastodon.world that hasn't been answered.

Just looked at Ruud's account, and he has been inactive for a few weeks now, he may not be available and this may have been done in his absence. I think Antik has been the only one to reply, but saying that a whole instance is untrustworthy and associating to people complaining about how this server has handled itself seems like deflection, specially when OP seems to have defended lemmy.world against those very same criticisms in the past.

I really just wanted to know, but having no clear answer is an answer to itself. I'll just let this alt become my new main so I don't have to risk the wipeout. It still leaves a lot of possible potential damage, but people are crowding around this instance, whatchagonnado.

[+] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] AMillionNames 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

OP has provided all information he can and archived to verify its objectivity. It is the admins who are being silent to the multiple number of complaints. It is hardly due to OP that messages have most certainly been removed from the modlog, it is hardly due to OP that the reason for their ban was what it was and not what you are claiming OP to be, or that the admins are largely remaining silent from this discussion.

When indisputable evidence has been presented, it should be other side to defend themselves, not have speculation provided as if it has the same equal weight. You are basically saying that your speculation regarding the potential bad faith of the OP is the same as all the objective proof that they have provided. It is not.