While I don’t think it would be unwarranted, it’s also not specifically necessary. They can interpret that line to mean anything they want. It’s a volunteer run, privately hosted reddit clone. It doesn’t need to be as intricate as US law (which I not sure why that’s “baseline” for anything).
Because maybe the current admins are all great people who will do right. But we don’t know if all future admins will be. And if we get a “rules lawyer” coming down on a complaint that some community is being horrifically racist as “Well, it isn’t against the rules…”
But also? The world is an increasingly shitty place. Twitter is run by a straight up white supremacist. Having this kind of verbiage goes a long way toward indicating if a place can even possibly be a “safe space” as it were.
But also: If the idea is that we should just trust the admins: Why have any rules at all?
Nothing here is written in stone. If shitty people take over, there’s absolutely nothing to stop them throwing out the rules as written, or just ignoring them.
But also: If the idea is that we should just trust the admins: Why have any rules at all?
All we have here is trust. These rules are more so the admins proclaiming their intended goals and actions. Again, there’s nothing to stop an instance admin from doing whatever they want. Could it be more verbose? Absolutely. But as for the claims that the new rules show any deviousness on the part of the current admins, or that having better written rules will inherently protect anyone? Those don’t really hold any merit, imo.
The difference is that if a TOS needs to be changed to support shitty behavior, it changes. That is often a canary in the coal mine as it were and people STILL cite google removing “Do no evil” and so forth. Same with the Unity debacle where a few people noticed things had been rewritten… and nobody listened until it became a massive kerfluffle.
Because yes. Admins can do (and see) whatever they want. Welcome to message boards. And I do think having a written TOS is a good step forward (even if this TOS is probably objectively bad for a lot of reasons). It provides a contract of sorts.
But also: I would very much say that NOT providing provisions for discrimination based on ethnicity/sexuality/gender/religion/whatever is a pretty big red flag almost to the level of “I don’t see color”. Because yes, it is not in and of itself support for bigotry (even if many will view it as such). It is an indication of not understanding the problems that others are facing and not realizing how important it is to call that out.
Like, there is a reason that “Wheaton’s Rule” is not actually something you can run a community on. And this has been demonstrated time and time again over the decades.
It doesn’t need to be as intricate as US law (which I not sure why that’s “baseline” for anything).
IMHO it would be better if it was as intricate as Roman law. Because while the wording might be intricate, all you need to know if something is allowed, disallowed, or required is to simply look at the law.
In the mean time, “esoteric” law systems like common law expect you to look at the precedents. That works in real life due to huge bureaucratic apparatus and recording old cases, but for a simple internet forum you won’t get it.
EDIT: my point is that trying to make something “too simple” will bite you back later on, with even more complexity.
Making something too complex will also bite you in the ass.
The difference between starting simple and starting complex is that starting simple provides a path to actually finding the correct level of complexity.
Complexity in general is undesirable. But sometimes it’s a necessary evil. And sometimes trying to be too simple will have the opposite effect, adding complexity instead of reducing it.
I might be wrong but I believe that it’s the case here. One of the lemmy.world admins already confirmed ITT that 5.0.1 will be enforced in a way to cover discrimination; this is great but the letter of the rule should be, IMHO, clearer on this. Perhaps a small tweak like
5.0.1: Before and when using the website, remember you will be interacting with real people and communities, and every one of our users has a right to browse and interact with the website and all of its contents free of treatment such as harassment, bullying, violation of privacy or threats of violence. You are not allowed to use this website to attack other groups of people, based on characteristics such as their sex, sexuality and gender, ethnicity and race, country of origin and residence, religious affiliation or lack of, or other groups that they might belong to.
would be already enough to shut the fuck up of both the alt right and witch hunters.
Just my two cents, mind you. (Note that I’ve kept “attack” - as you said in another comment [and I agree], it’s clearer than “discriminate”.)
While I don’t think it would be unwarranted, it’s also not specifically necessary. They can interpret that line to mean anything they want. It’s a volunteer run, privately hosted reddit clone. It doesn’t need to be as intricate as US law (which I not sure why that’s “baseline” for anything).
“Just trust me bro” is never a good model.
Because maybe the current admins are all great people who will do right. But we don’t know if all future admins will be. And if we get a “rules lawyer” coming down on a complaint that some community is being horrifically racist as “Well, it isn’t against the rules…”
But also? The world is an increasingly shitty place. Twitter is run by a straight up white supremacist. Having this kind of verbiage goes a long way toward indicating if a place can even possibly be a “safe space” as it were.
But also: If the idea is that we should just trust the admins: Why have any rules at all?
Nothing here is written in stone. If shitty people take over, there’s absolutely nothing to stop them throwing out the rules as written, or just ignoring them.
All we have here is trust. These rules are more so the admins proclaiming their intended goals and actions. Again, there’s nothing to stop an instance admin from doing whatever they want. Could it be more verbose? Absolutely. But as for the claims that the new rules show any deviousness on the part of the current admins, or that having better written rules will inherently protect anyone? Those don’t really hold any merit, imo.
The difference is that if a TOS needs to be changed to support shitty behavior, it changes. That is often a canary in the coal mine as it were and people STILL cite google removing “Do no evil” and so forth. Same with the Unity debacle where a few people noticed things had been rewritten… and nobody listened until it became a massive kerfluffle.
Because yes. Admins can do (and see) whatever they want. Welcome to message boards. And I do think having a written TOS is a good step forward (even if this TOS is probably objectively bad for a lot of reasons). It provides a contract of sorts.
But also: I would very much say that NOT providing provisions for discrimination based on ethnicity/sexuality/gender/religion/whatever is a pretty big red flag almost to the level of “I don’t see color”. Because yes, it is not in and of itself support for bigotry (even if many will view it as such). It is an indication of not understanding the problems that others are facing and not realizing how important it is to call that out.
Like, there is a reason that “Wheaton’s Rule” is not actually something you can run a community on. And this has been demonstrated time and time again over the decades.
IMHO it would be better if it was as intricate as Roman law. Because while the wording might be intricate, all you need to know if something is allowed, disallowed, or required is to simply look at the law.
In the mean time, “esoteric” law systems like common law expect you to look at the precedents. That works in real life due to huge bureaucratic apparatus and recording old cases, but for a simple internet forum you won’t get it.
EDIT: my point is that trying to make something “too simple” will bite you back later on, with even more complexity.
Making something too complex will also bite you in the ass.
The difference between starting simple and starting complex is that starting simple provides a path to actually finding the correct level of complexity.
Complexity in general is undesirable. But sometimes it’s a necessary evil. And sometimes trying to be too simple will have the opposite effect, adding complexity instead of reducing it.
I might be wrong but I believe that it’s the case here. One of the lemmy.world admins already confirmed ITT that 5.0.1 will be enforced in a way to cover discrimination; this is great but the letter of the rule should be, IMHO, clearer on this. Perhaps a small tweak like
would be already enough to shut the fuck up of both the alt right and witch hunters.
Just my two cents, mind you. (Note that I’ve kept “attack” - as you said in another comment [and I agree], it’s clearer than “discriminate”.)
The federal government sets the bare minimum protections for people.