This community can't continue to exist on lemmy.world
This community can't continue to exist on lemmy.world
The instance owners do not wish to host potentially problematic content.
I will try to locate a more suitable instance.
You're viewing a single thread.
"We're gonna be the instance for everybody! Not you. Not you. Not you either. Ew. Not you. Who let all this riff-raff into the room?"
Between that and the constant downtime, this account might be short-lived.
They are literally going through the same pains as any other social media sites that start getting big. Every social media site wants to be "all-inclusive" until you have to start worrying about content moderation and liability. Shit gets intense.
As for the "downtime," they've done posts about it. They are being constantly DDOS'ed by someone (assuming another defederated instance owner). And given your annoyance of it, it sounds like the DDOS is working as intended. The instance admins have done a fantastic job so far and I intend to wait it out.
There's no excuse for fumbling along like this is new. Better-run sites know what's coming and stick close to their initial rules.
If your site hosts pornographic drawings and you don't have a crystal clear line on whether that includes Bart Simpson, you are a fucking idiot.
If your site involves politics and you don't have a crystal clear line on whether Nazis are welcome, you are a fucking idiot.
If your site welcomes leftist counterculture and you don't have a crystal clear line on whether that includes making guns, smoking pot, or copying text, you are a fucking idiot.
The DDOS is something I've gladly weathered, in light of the admins taking it as an opportunity to debug the codebase. But what they've posted in-between those updates is "yeah btw we banned another thing that wouldn't raise an eyebrow on 2015 reddit." I'm not sure I want to stick around with that even if service was flawless.
Nice work lumping "Making guns" and "Copying text" together
Look up the word "or."
Yeah fuck those instance owners for not taking on legal risk! We don't pay them and they should pay for our legal fees out of respect for the content we generate (which is copywritten and could get the instance owner in legal trouble)!
Edit: typos. Also, to explain: I just want y'all to consider the folks who keep the instances running and the legal risk they take. Some instances don't want to take on the risk. It's not a left/right thing, it's a risk-assesment thing. Removing content that might get them in legal trouble doesn't mean that the instance is taking a political, ethical or moral stance on the topic. It's really weird to think otherwise. My point was that when the instance owners get a dmca takedown notice (doesn't really matter what country, doesn't really matter if theh own the rights to that content or not), they are faced with a choice: do nothing and get sued, possibly needing to shut down the free service as a result. Or, they can choose to remove the content.
Conversational forums like lemmy are still places where links to pirated content can exist. I know people just talk about pirated content and that it's moderated but hear me out: sometimes people get busy and fall behind. They could then end up with a lawsuit.
To avoid this, a reasonable policy might be to just avoid the topic altogether. But that doesn't make them right or left wing, it just makes them regular site admins without an unlimited amount of money or the desire to go off grid and on the run. Yeah, that's the worst case scenario, my point simply being "free service run for long time if rules prevent legal threats to the service's livelyhood" see: napster.
They have a right to be exclusive and we have a right to not like it.
There are rights and there is if what theyre used to do in a situation is reasonable. Here, the point isnt that you dont have the right to complain, its that complaining that they should risk getting in legal trouble isnt reasonable.
Civil disobedience: forbidden.
Discussion civil disobedience: banned.
Advocating to allow the discussion of civil disobedience: unreasonable.
Jesus Christ, what is the origin of political change, in your reality? Suggestive whimpering?
Theres probably some misunderstanding here, I've no idea what you mean or what's gotten you so angry.
There seems to be. They seem to think that I am anti-piracy.
Your causes are not the causes of the admins of lemmy.world.
Some jurisdictions are relatively more permissive than others, so the legal risk is not uniform. There will be some user flows until the instance landscape has settled.
Which jurisdiction, mine or yours? Or what about the other person who will comment under this?
Is that the 123.52.33.19 jurisdiction or the 95.32.122.99 jurisdiction?
In other words, on the internet, how are you going to reliably change the content to fit the viewer’s jurisdiction?
Just so people know, when you send a request to the internet, you’re not sending a request from your home address, you’re sending it from an IP address. Those IP addresses are not linked to City, State and Country, at least not reliably. MaxMind has a “GeoIP” database of “best guess” countries for IP addresses, but even if lemmy software were to implement geoIP gating like this, you’d have to taylor individual communities to individual jurisdictions and..
NO ONE IS DOING THAT. Nor will they anytime soon, most likely.
On the internet, it’s far easier to just shut the topic down, as was done with piracy. Sure, folks can share pirated content inside the “spiders” community if they wanted to, but that’s at least a little harder for rights holders to find than the “piracy” community. And by rights holders I mean companies that scan the web for keywords and link and send out automated DCMA takedown requests.
Your point may stand in court but we’re on the internet and those instance owners are likely trying to avoid going to court.
Again, instance owners aren’t instance owners because they want to be your political advocates in court, at their own expence, at the threat of the site being shut down.
The relevant part is the legislation of the instance hosting location and the degree of anonymity of the instance owner and his attitude.
Hetzner is the very opposite of bulletproof hosting, the owner of lemmy.world is fully public and his attitude to potentially problematic content is on public record.
legislation of the instance hosting location
Unless the hosting location is in the principality of SEALAND, and even if it is in SEALAND I think you’re going to be surprised about jurisdiction. Edward Snowden revealed a while back that all traffic crossing us borders is monitored. If the site is in the US, the server is within their jurisdiction and can easily be seized. If the site is outside of the US, traffic to that site is monitored from traffic originating from inside the US.
What if the content is hosted overseas? Doesn’t matter, still sued
The internet is global. Local jurisdiction for copyright infringement isn’t something I would hang my hat on. With greatly paid lawyers comes lots of power.
the degree of anonymity
read: the ability of the instance owner to shield themselves from legal trouble by trying to outrun it. (not a sustainable practice).
his attitude
read: the preferences of the instance owner to sheild themselves from legal trouble.
bulletproof hosting
read: the ability for users to post content that might get the instance owner in trouble with the expectation that it will not get the instance owner in trouble because it is legally-sound or otherwise outside of any jurisdiction of US law.
the owner of lemmy.world is fully public
read: the instance owner complies with the law.
his attitude to potentially problematic content is on public record
read: the instance owner’s preference for the instance owner to sheild themselves from legal trouble have been mentioned online. uh huh..
I don't seem to be able to make myself understood. Once again: monitoring of (encrypted) connections is irrelevant. Or just getting the data from your own federating instance.
Consider an anonymously paid bulletproof hosted lemmy instance. The admin is unknown, the hosters are not responsive to takedown requests, jurisdiction is neutral or welcoming. I can think of multiple such controversial instances that have survived for decades. It's the gold standard, but silver or even bronze is far better than a jumpy self-censoring guy hosting stuff at a severely problem-averse hoster like Hetzner.
If end users want to add protection layers to that it is their own prerogative and out of scope. EOT.
No I understand you quite clearly. You want to make the instance owner liable for your content. I am saying the instance owner does not want to be legally liable for your content. Do you seee how the world does not revolve around your wishes and desires? How much are y'all paying this instance owner to make it worth their while for taking on all this risk, zero monies? Yeah that won't work, and the community is likely to be banned or defederated. Oh look, like it did.
I am just explaining the reality. You are explaining your desires.
Example: Some pedophiles started posting CSAM to lemmyshitpost, and now lemmyshitpost is down. Do you understand me yet?
copywritten
Underlining how worthless your hot take is. You know less than nothing.
Ah, toxicity is always the best way to win arguments.
Did you see the bullshit I'm responding to?
You mispelled trying. You were trying to respond.
No, trying is what you're doing, with this weak trolling. I told someone railing about laws that they can't even spell their name.
This thread's subject is about three steps removed from the subject of copyright law, and no worthwhile discussion is going to emerge from someone smugging it up about that subject when they literally do not know the first thing about that subject.
Oof
There's always the delete button.
I'm not convinced you understand reality beyond the level of posturing. Like if you repeat "HOW EMBARRASSING!" loud enough, that will become real.
Which is delightfully ironic when you just spat the word "toxicity" over a mistake you then repeated, four straight times.
What you're doing is trolling and you're not very good at it.
The redditor ethos
You’ve never heard of Copywrite law? Is libgen not a site for distrubiting copywritten content like text books?
Look, I’m on the information wants to be free side of things, but I do know a bit about the law.
Please, oh wise one, break down my stupidity and leave no detail out!
You’ve never heard of Copywrite law?
Google it.
Don't scoff. Copy-paste that term into any search engine. See what you get instead.
... what's the word before ".gov"?
Oh yeah buddy you got me. I mispelled a word so I don't know shit. You must've gone to harvard with your intellect.
What's your point? I mispelled a word so I don't understand the concept or the law?
Want to explain to me how libgen is fair use because it is a transformative work?
Want to argue why I don't know shit about shit?
Or are you just going to continue to hoist yourself on your own petard?
"Uh well yeah I couldn't find the first thing about this topic with a map and a tour guide, but I'm still the expert in this super serious debate."
You barged in on me rolling my eyes at someone for making a simple mistake... and took three tries to even understand that's what was going on. Yes. Yes I do doubt your understanding of the general concept and its laws.
Fortunately I don't care about your opinion of either, because what this specific thread is ABOUT is whether forums should support civil disobedience.
This is a community for breaking certain laws.
It doesn't break laws, itself. It's as defensible as any marijuana-enthusiast subforum. So we're wondering why the line is drawn here, and if this is where the line stops. A lot of other morally necessary discussions on Lemmy will concern such laws.
Anyone going "but there's laws!" is confused.
None moreso than the people who don't even know their name.
Hoisting yourself it is, then. How embarrassing this must be for you.
"Here is why you're wrong, in detail."
"Nuh-uh I already won acuz I said so. You are humiliated. Humiliated!"
Meanwhile.
In reality.
This is obviously something people do host. There's a website (with mirrors) at the center of this topic. The website we're on now, and the service it's built on, made some promises about discussing that law-breaking website, and readily hosts some law-breaking content directly.
We're trying to question several intermediate steps in that complex relationship.
You're trying to project an irrational emotional state on someone who's been steering you back toward that as gently as you deserve.
Even if the answer is that we all have to find a new host - or do it ourselves, which is an option - all this railing about the laaaw will have contributed precisely dick. We're familiar, thanks. Some of us are fundamentally opposed to it existing in any form. We reserve the right to ask 'what the hell' when someone invites us onto their rug so they can yank it out from under us. If you find any opinion on that besides trying to essentially degrade a pseudonymous stranger, let me know.
Yes, I've also made accounts on some other instances. Not made the jump to run my own yet, the code base is not yet sufficiently stable nor are the moderation tools yet there.