Don’t even get me started. Go ahead and ask any of the admins which copyright laws they’re so terrified of. They’ll tell you US laws.

As I understand it, she wasn’t “denied” it, technically, she was harassed and belittled and made to feel like a bad person for taking it.

Maybe the law in Canada can still be used? I hope so.

No, not exactly. It’s more like “a service isn’t held responsible for what users do with it”. If an analogy is helpful, imagine charging the phone company because two people arranged a bank robbery over the phone. That’s what section 230 prevents. (It’s more complicated than I’m making it but for our purposes the complications aren’t pertinent.)

LW was in no danger at all, assuming that if they were contacted about copyright violations, they react in a sane way, by taking down the offending content.

The whole

Well the radio silence on it sure seems like they’re circling the wagons to protect an admin that clearly isn’t emotionally mature enough to be in such a position.

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

How does “that’s not how this works” sound like whining? I can’t tell if you’re just not reading anything, or if you are desperately trying to have a different conversation with me than the one I’m having.

You are indeed very wise, fuckfuckmyfuckingass.

I only commented so I could type out your username haha.

I might end up leaving-- more for the ban stuff than the blocking piracy stuff-- but that’s wholly beside the point when it comes to whether copyright law works like people are suggesting. It doesn’t. The LW admins aren’t going to be unexpectedly served papers for a lawsuit. They’re going to get a boilerplate email with information on a claim of copyright infringement and they’re going to remove the content without question and that will be the end of it.

Like I said, “just leave if you don’t like it” has nothing to do with the point I’m making.

They’re unbanning them from a sitewide ban and then immediately banning them from the lemmyworld community.

Do you think discussing piracy is illegal?

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?

Is this true? I understood the lemmy moderation capabilities that any post, even non-local ones, could be removed from an instance, and any user, even non-local ones, could be banned from a community or the entire instance.

Is this not the case?

This rebuttal you keep falling back on makes no sense. What do you think it’s refuting?

Like I said, this isn’t new ground being traversed. There is a pretty straightforward method for dealing with this that doesn’t involve lawsuits unless the LW admins intentionally ignore the process.

People here are acting as if LW is some unique thing and that copyright law is an unknown entity. We know how this works. The person I responded to seems to think that LW is somehow unique, and I would like to understand their thought process.

I’m not here to defend that guy, but since you offered this stance, what do you think about JFK’s quote

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

Is that an “implied” death threat?

This isn’t a gotcha; I’m just curious at your personal opinion.

What specifically would you say makes copyright law apply differently to lemmy.world?

Analogies are generally terrible at convincing people, and even more so when it’s about legal situations.

The process would be that they get sent some notice that something they’re hosting violates copyright law, and that it needs to be taken down or a lawsuit will happen. Unless they ignore it, and they should definitely not do that, then nothing else happens. If they get a lot of them from a certain community or instance, then they discuss why those mods/admin can’t keep their community in order, and if it becomes enough of a hassle, defederation or blocking is prudent.

Copyright law can be pretty ridiculous, no argument there, but this is well trodden stuff here. lemmy.world is not the first social media website that has had this concern.

I’m probably being overly cynical, but I have a pretty unflattering option of volunteer moderators and the type of people that seek out such seemingly thankless positions-- and their motivations for doing so. I know this might seem-- bizarre-- considering where I am posting this, but I think it nonetheless.

I like lemmy because there’s a modlog to see these things. I do not believe that these users would be unbanned if it hadn’t been noticed in the modlog. And it appears they’re unbanned from the sitewide ban, but still banned in the community. Not sure what sense that makes.

If your instance gets big enough, you’ll also have to deal with petty tyrants seeking out positions of petty power.

There are worse, imo.

user @snake posted:

Did you ever consider ceding ownership of the instance to an entity with greater legal capabilities?

In the end, it will not make sense to try to keep this instance running if the owners are unable to provide adequate service to its users.

and was banned for:

reason: Go get your service somewhere else

Definitely not a great look.

Uh, @lwadmin@lemmy.world … what’s up with the banning going on in this thread? I noticed on a.lemmy.org that someone was labeled “banned” and their comment was simply “Ight, I’m out”

The mod note was “Let us help you”.

There are more similarly weak (spiteful?) bans that certainly don’t seem to be at a standard for a ban. “Litterally 1984” was another one. Is that all it takes to be banned here?

Edit: Many (all?) the users I referenced as banned are now unbanned from the site, but now banned from this community.