All from in this thread in !world@lemmy.world about a chant at a British music festival where an artist said "death, death to the IDF".
After other users were quoting that chant in the comments and had comments removed and banned, the hero of our story, @theacharnian@lemmy.ca (appearing as "acargitz") pointed out that under international law, fighting an occupying force is legitimate. But apparently not under world news rules, as their removed comments and the many explanations from mods make clear in the thread.
Equally against the rules is the call for the eradication of an organisation or business, even without an explicit call to violence against individual members of the business.
In the same thread: user @DeathToTheIDF@lemmings.world had comments removed for being anti-American "(again)", though I couldn't see the first time. It's not even clear to me how the removed comments were anti-American.
Bonus points for the "DC Comics" removal reason. Though this seems to be incompetence, rather than malice.
Again... Lemmy is not the real world. What happens in the real world has no bearing on what is or is not allowed in a lemmy community.
What we are talking about are stupid fucking users who want to get away with comments advocating death and destruction and then acting like they were personally injured when they were told their comments break the rules and were removed.
The rule in !world@lemmy.world and other communities is dead simple: Do not advocate violence.
If you do it, and get your comment removed, go fuck yourself. You deserved it. If you keep doing it, and get temp banned, again, go fuck yourself, you deserved it. If you come back from the temp ban and keep doing it, what in the everlasting fuck do you expect is going to happen?
This is about correcting bad user behavior. Some learn from it, go and sin no more, and become valued members of the community. Others do not and get bounced and nothing of value was lost.
Yes, you wield power here.
The internet is just as real as anything else. Information is physical. The secret police can find you from here.
Not to say that the internet is more than slightly real-it is 2025; that's not even a thing anymore.
But you have advocated violemce here. You have laid out a grim philosophy in which laws, which are purely fantasy nonsense bullshit without the force of violence behind them¹ are the very substance of society² and necessary for social function². I believe you referenced some cuneiform tablets you absolutely will not be tricking me into reading that had a very high opinion of themselves?
That would mean any advocacy for laws or prosecution just a convoluted call for violence, and if 'luigi' or 'minecraft' aren't cover, that isn't either.
So you do endorse and allow calls for certain kinds and contexts of violence. But you won't admit or acknowledge it. You wont clarify your editorial position; you simply say you don't have one.
To say nothing of even the driest pro war position.
And (title drop!) that's a hell of a power trip to make everyone elses problem, you fucking bastard. Why can't you acknowledge this?
¹pretty much agreed ²wow thats super gross. What the fuck, dude?
Lemmy communites have no power over the real world. We DO have power over what is or is not allowed in our communities.
We choose to say advocating violence is not acceptable here. Attacking other users is not acceptable here. Attacking the mods is definitely not acceptable here.
Don't like it? Tough shit. Nobody is asking you to like it. Grow up. Communities have rules, if you don't want to abide by them go fling your poo somewhere else, we do not have to tolerate it.
Eccept obviously some of it is. So you need to address what you do or do not define as violence explicitly. Youre just looping now, like theres a thing keeping you from saying it explicitly. You're avoiding my questions so hard; it feels like I'm talking to a chatbot. An old one.
So let's take another approach: let me make some statements and you can tell me which would or wouldn't be bannable for violence:
A>Thats fucking disgusting. That we as a society let someone live after doing that is obscene. We should all be ashamed.
B>i think id kill the fucker, if i saw them doing that.
C>if anyone is considering doing that, they should consider killing themselves first
D>anyone who does this shoukd be hanged
E>i didnt even know microwaves could squirt. Im gonna throw up so hard my downstairs neighbor drowns.
F>ill vote for anyone who promises to go to war with any country that allows thay
G>if i tried that, my jaw would be a fine red mist.
H>there has to be a law against this. If there isnt, we need to fix that
I>shit, this looks recent. I think i recognize the skyline in the background. Im calling the police.
J>im going to find and kill this piece of shit.
K>anyone who does that should be denied housing, food, and every other benefit of society.
Edit:
L>im going to order this guy some edibles and 20k calories of food every day until he has a heart attack and fucking dies.
M>this meddlesome microwave atrocity doer is something id love to not share a world with.
If you're going to be a pedant and demand a definition of 'violence' I'd say start with the dictionary. Unless you were dropped on your head as a child you should know what the word "violence" means.
But sure, I'll play along:
"So let's take another approach: let me make some statements and you can tell me which would or wouldn't be bannable for violence:"
First off, removable is not bannable. Don't confuse removing an offending comment with banning a user. Banning happens after multiple removals and warnings.
"A>Thats fucking disgusting."
Not on it's own, no. But if it were in context towards a protected group, then yes. Removable. We have removed many similar comments directed at trans individuals and communities for example, but wouldn't be removed for violence in those instances, rather transphobia or homophobia.
"That we as a society let someone live after doing that is obscene. We should all be ashamed."
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
"B>i think id kill the fucker, if i saw them doing that."
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
"C>if anyone is considering doing that, they should consider killing themselves first"
Advocating suicide is more serious, would get removed and likely temp banned. If the comment history showed a pattern of that it would be a permaban with no warning. We do not fuck around with encouraging suicide. Entirely too many cases of real world suicides driven by online ass-hattery.
"D>anyone who does this shoukd be hanged"
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
"E>i didnt even know microwaves could squirt. Im gonna throw up so hard my downstairs neighbor drowns."
That's kind of objectively hilarious, but obviously hyperbole. I've personally used the phrase "threw up everything I've eaten since I was 12." Not biologically possible, but you get the idea.
"F>ill vote for anyone who promises to go to war with any country that allows thay"
I guess it depends on what the 'thay" is? Hard to tell from this.
"G>if i tried that, my jaw would be a fine red mist."
Again, depends on what the "that" is. Swallowing a shotgun? Suicide ideation, see above. But without that context, can't tell.
"H>there has to be a law against this. If there isnt, we need to fix that"
"You're right! There oughta be a law!"
https://youtu.be/SZ8psP4S6BQ#t=55s
"I>shit, this looks recent. I think i recognize the skyline in the background. Im calling the police. "
Not removable unless they specifically identify the person or place in the comment, then it would be removed for doxing. We had A LOT of that for some shithead white supremacist, people kept posting his home address in a variety of creative ways. Repeat offenders were banned. Wow, I don't even remember who it was now, that was a wild week or so.
"J>im going to find and kill this piece of shit."
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
"K>anyone who does that should be denied housing, food, and every other benefit of society."
In the old Icelandic sagas, they had this as a punishment for certain crimes, it was called being an outlaw. You were literally outside the law and had no legal rights or protections. If someone didn't like your face and decided they wanted to kill you, they would not be punished for it because you're an outlaw. Grettir's Saga man, good read! He got branded an outlaw for setting a house on fire and killing everyone inside. Lived longer as an outlaw than anyone else.
Not really a call for violence.
Edit:
"L>im going to order this guy some edibles and 20k calories of food every day until he has a heart attack and fucking dies."
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
"M>this meddlesome microwave atrocity doer is something id love to not share a world with."
Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.
So deferring to an authority with the ability to do violence or creating a situation that would make an outcome roughly synonymous with violence are okay. Expressing a desire or intent, aside from the invocation of the violence of a higher power such as the state is fine. Maybe put that in the ru)es.