cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/22920690

Hello World,

following feedback we have received in the last few days, both from users and moderators, we are making some changes to clarify our ToS.

Before we get to the changes, we want to remind everyone that we are not a (US) free speech instance. We are not located in US, which means different laws apply. As written in our ToS, we’re primarily subject to Dutch, Finnish and German laws. Additionally, it is our discretion to further limit discussion that we don’t consider tolerable. There are plenty other websites out there hosted in US and promoting free speech on their platform. You should be aware that even free speech in US does not cover true threats of violence.

Having said that, we have seen a lot of comments removed referring to our ToS, which were not explicitly intended to be covered by our ToS. After discussion with some of our moderators we have determined there to be both an issue with the ambiguity of our ToS to some extent, but also lack of clarity on what we expect from our moderators.

We want to clarify that, when moderators believe certain parts of our ToS do not appropriately cover a specific situation, they are welcome to bring these issues up with our admin team for review, escalating the issue without taking action themselves when in doubt. We also allow for moderator discretion in a lot of cases, as we generally don’t review each individual report or moderator action unless they’re specifically brought to admin attention. This also means that content that may be permitted by ToS can at the same time be violating community rules and therefore result in moderator action. We have added a new section to our ToS to clarify what we expect from moderators.

We are generally aiming to avoid content organizing, glorifying or suggesting to harm people or animals, but we are limiting the scope of our ToS to build the minimum framework inside which we all can have discussions, leaving a broader area for moderators to decide what is and isn’t allowed in the communities they oversee. We trust the moderators judgement and in cases where we see a gross disagreement between moderatos and admins’ criteria we can have a conversation and reach an agreement, as in many cases the decision is case-specific and context matters.

We have previously asked moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification when this was suggested in context of murder or other violent crimes. Following a discussion in our team we want to clarify that we are no longer requesting moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification in the context of violent crimes when the crime in question already happened. We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence, which is violating our terms of service.

As always, if you stumble across content that appears to be violating our site or community rules, please use Lemmys report functionality. Especially when threads are very active, moderators will not be able to go through every single comment for review. Reporting content and providing accurate reasons for reports will help moderators deal with problematic content in a reasonable amount of time.

Hexbear stay winning as the place you can openly advocate for CEO death and find five voices agreeing with you.

permalink
report
reply
43 points

Five is low

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

That only means most of the hexberians are sleeping

permalink
report
parent
reply

Sleepytime in the big wide bed we all share in the attic of one of the Kremlin’s spires

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

australian posting hours

permalink
report
parent
reply

We even have a theme song.

https://youtu.be/OtxH414tGkA

permalink
report
parent
reply

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

permalink
report
parent
reply

We are generally aiming to avoid content organizing, glorifying or suggesting to harm people or animals,

What is it with r*dditors and the phrase “harm to people or animals”? And none of them are vegan, either, so it’s not as if they take the “harm to animals” part seriously

permalink
report
reply

If they’re already dead, it doesn’t cause any harm to them

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I used to have this picture of some aliens operating on a human. One of the aliens was saying “it’s ok, cause they aren’t as enlightened as us”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Good thing that CEOs aren’t people

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

The translation of the phrase from lib means “My friends and my pets” and nothing more. They themselves do not realize this though because they don’t ever think past their own selves.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I think it’s because r*dditors are those weird dog people. It’s okay to kill non-Americans, cows, pigs, etc. in the most cruel ways you could conceive of, but if you feed a dog vegan food, that’s wrong and you should be skinned alive.

There was a conversation about this the other day in a different thread.

permalink
report
parent
reply

CEO kills tens of thousands of people through social murder — I sleep

Someone, deservedly, kills the CEO — We DoNt AdVoCaTe FoR vIoLenCe

permalink
report
reply
29 points

Honestly, what are the odds this kid gets a trial at all? Extremely non-zero chance he himself in the next few weeks.

permalink
report
reply
23 points

Straight up: if this actually is the guy and I was the ruling class I would do everything I could to ensure that exact thing did not happen. If he dies in police custody I am Epstein brained enough at this point to buy the argument that Luigi Mangione is a fall guy because they need somebody to make an example of to keep people from getting funny ideas.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Seems pretty likely this is the guy, no? From having a manifesto to the same smile in the security footage to being completely politically lost, what would make you think that this is a random “fall guy?”

I think a fucking class traitor snitched and did the cops’ job for them

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

I was in the camp that was skeptical from the very beginning that the person in the Starbucks picture whose face we see (who may very well be Luigi Mangione) and the actual shooter in the video are not the same person. The backpack is different and even the coat itself doesn’t seem to match (though I admit that couuld be video quality/lighting).

Now suddenly they snatch this dude who has this ghost gun on him and a “manifesto”? After all that he didn’t dispose of it? I am not convinced at this point he is a fall guy and I’m extremely interested to learn more information to figure out how all the dots connect but yeah…if he suddenly was found dead in police custody having hanged himself…that’d look a bit suspicious to me. I fully accept that truth is stranger than fiction but man this whole thing is hella bizarre.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Absolute losers, so glad we’re not like that

permalink
report
reply