• db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    474·
    4 months ago

    PTB. This is unreasonable. Also trying to prevent teenagers from accessing the internet is just going to lead to all teenagers just lying about their age. It’s not going to stop it. It’s just going to mean they can’t discuss their actual opinions and issues honestly. It would also reinforce the need to lie to be part of culture, which is just not healthy.

    • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works
      134·
      4 months ago

      Teenagers lying about their age on the internet is as old as teenagers on the internet.

      Keeping the age barriers in place is good anyway. It communicates to younger people clearly that the content is not considered suitable for them. It gives them a moment to think and reconsider.

      Participating in online culture might be generally not healthy for adults as well.

  • comfy@lemmy.ml
    251·
    4 months ago

    Aw, they actually did the ban. That’s unfortunate.

    On one hand, yes, legal liability and all that, but on the other hand half the site is copyright violations. The law only matters sometimes. I say this as someone who has hosted web communities myself, there’s no reason to be banning for something like age on these instances, especially when we’re talking 16 and not 12. It’s unenforceable and trivial enough that there’s no legal pressure to do so.

  • fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    19·
    4 months ago

    Damn, i liked sag :(

    I think i’m going with a soft PTB from my pov. Tbf dbzer0 is pretty lax on rules, especially towards people outside the instance. I don’t think it’s within my place or anyone else’s to ban someone from such a huge part of the fediverse.

    But this highlights the need to decentralize from .world, the fact that a single instance ban can take away such a huge part of the fediverse from a user feels ridiculous.

    I get why they did it, but it feels unfair.

    • Nora@lemmy.ml
      122·
      4 months ago

      I willingly blocked .world that place is a toxic cesspool. It also felt too much like reddit.

      • Dr. Taco@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        10·
        4 months ago

        Yeah, this sort of stuff strikes me as bad for the user affected and for .world, but good for lemmy overall. An active, competent user is being forced to post to non-LW communities exclusively.

          • Dr. Taco@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            6·
            4 months ago

            Agreed. But even if he does, this sort of stuff contributes to a reputation and could lead future users to choose to post to communities on better instances. That’s the part I think would be good for lemmy overall.

  • Kane@femboys.biz
    18·
    4 months ago

    Yeah, it seems a little odd to do a full ban for anyone under 18. Do they feel that all communities on there are not appropriate for minors?

  • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    214·
    4 months ago

    PTB, this seems really like they’re overstepping their bounds, @Demigodrick@lemmy.zip has clarified the matter.

    Unfortunately this isn’t the first time Lemmy.world has done something like this using “legal” as an excuse, and probably won’t be the last time. They’re too big so they’ll never get defederated or penalized by any server wishing to stay even remotely relevant so nothing is likely to change.

  • flamingos-cant (hopepunk arc)@feddit.ukEnglish
    172·
    4 months ago

    I’m really not sure how the TOS apply given it opens with:

    This Terms of Service applies to your access to and active use of https://lemmy.world/, it’s API’s and sub-domain services (ex alt GUIs)(we, us, our the website, Lemmy.World, or LW) as well as all other properties and services associated with Lemmy.World.

    Sag wasn’t accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself. This would be like an email provider blocking a particular address from another service because the user of that address doesn’t comply with a part of their TOS.

    • sag@lemm.ee
      19·
      4 months ago

      What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?

      Fortunately I have good and supportive parents.

    • Blazingtransfem98@discuss.online
      154·
      4 months ago

      What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?

      That’s the whole point, they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children. People are going to argue otherwise but as a trans person myself I’ve seen this and you’re not fooling anyone with your lame excuses about protecting kids. People especially those who are vulnerable need support networks, do you know how many trans kids kill themselves because they can’t get the support they need and live with abusive and controlling parents. Don’t tell me it’s to protect kids, I’m not stupid enough to buy that lie and you’re not stupid enough to think I’d buy it.

          • Blazingtransfem98@discuss.online
            8·
            4 months ago

            It’s weird that you consider actions reminiscent of ownership and control, like trying to keep children away from support groups, or preventing a trans kid from expressing themselves in a way that aligns with their gender identity, responsibility or mentorship. You sound so much like a right wing troll right now, and it’s not funny or amusing.

            What, are you going to say that children don’t understand their gender? That they’re confused? That all parents care for their kids and should be the only influence in their lives? It’s certainly sounds like that’s where you’re going right now.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
        19·
        4 months ago

        That’s the whole point[:] they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children.

        I wish I had your mind-reading ability. Without that omniscient edge this looks like the weirdest bit of teen O.D.D today.

        • Blazingtransfem98@discuss.online
          8·
          4 months ago

          Am I supposed to feel insulted? I don’t care what some right wing troll thinks of me. Whether you like it or not, right wing politicians push for these tactics to take support networks away from vulnerable people who they believe to have ownership of.

  • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    5·
    4 months ago

    ptb

    but…

    I think it’s great that we can expect actual rules and enforcement from instance admins, and have a chance to suss out the edges of these rules in open fora.

      • sag@lemm.ee
        5·
        4 months ago

        Most of the user on .world if they can’t even see my post what is point of posting :(

        • sunaurus@lemm.ee
          10·
          4 months ago

          I’m afraid .world users will also miss out on your mod actions in all of your communities, which is a particularly unfortunate side-effect.

          I don’t think it’s the end of the world (:P), though - .world is a big instance, but there are still tons of users on other instances. I mean, even in your communities, I don’t think .world is not making up the majority of activity.

          • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            6·
            4 months ago

            That’s a really problematic choice in the software. Mod actions should not be excluded/ignored even when a remote user is site banned, that can create dangerous situations for your server by allowing all mod actions to federate but not to your server. It just seems like a problem waiting to happen.

        • yawn@lemm.eeEnglish
          10·
          4 months ago

          You can always just make a fresh account (and don’t tell anybody)

        • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          4·
          4 months ago

          The other person suggested an alt without telling anyone, Ssems like the best outcome, really. That way LW can keep a blind eye to the thing, and your posts on your alts wouldn’t be banned from LW

        • throwaway@lemmy.cafeEnglish
          1·
          4 months ago

          There is still lots of people on other instances - and this could push people off .world.

      • sunaurus@lemm.ee
        16·
        4 months ago

        I’m not sure why .world has the 18 age requirement - AFAIK GDPR only requires 16+ if you don’t specifically ask for parental consent. Of course, there is the matter of pornography etc, but for example Reddit allows 13+ users, and all they do for pornography is show an NSFW warning, which Lemmy also has (although this is a good point - maybe the NSFW toggle should be improved to explicitly ask users to confirm their age on Lemmy as well, similarly to how it works on Reddit).

        But at the end of the day, each instance is free to create whatever rules and processes they want, and to ban people according to those rules. I would say that .world admins are probably just trying to do their best in enforcing their rules, and unfortunately that means that most likely you’ll be cut off from .world for the next 5 months 🫤

  • flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    62·
    4 months ago

    I’m biased here. I’m still against .world and their tendency to use “legality” as a smokescreen. (Blaming it for banning Luigi content right after he axed that United guy has earned my ire forever.)

    However… I’m almost 40, and it was always the rule to never mention your age until it didn’t matter. So on the one hand, world loves to use legality to push it’s agenda. On the other hand, this is an expected outcome.

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      51·
      4 months ago

      I agree with you that no one should really mention their age, though I don’t agree with you that there’s a point where it doesn’t matter. You’ll find plenty of groups willing to discriminate against older individuals, gaming groups, activist groups, STEM groups, it’s weird but it’s unfortunately a thing.

      Lemmy.world has a problem with over modderation when it is out of scope in situations like this, they also have a problem with undermoderation letting shit slide that shouldn’t like Reddit did. Lemmy.world has a lot of very big problems right now and they shouldn’t be cut slack of any of them, even if it is obvious how it happened.

      • flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        4 months ago

        This is a weird nit to pick. If you’re doing it right, you’re only mentioning your age when it doesn’t matter (in safe places or places where your age is helpful, versus places like Lemmy where someone will ban you.)

        A good example would be me saying, in this thread, I’m almost 40. Anybody who can use that against me doesn’t matter to me.

  • Ricky Rigatoni@lemm.ee
    119·
    4 months ago

    I think an 18+ rule for an instance that allows porn or federates with porn instances is reasonable. And when you interact with another instance’s communities, you are beholden to their rules. And the admin who did it said they’re talking about changing the rule. So it’s not like they’re just trying to be dicks.

    So… I’m going to go with admins did what they had to, sag learned a tiny lesson about not giving people more information than they needed. I don’t want to say YDI, though.

  • Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
    0·
    4 months ago

    Hey, I’m the one that decided to ban this user. I understand the frustration, but it is very much in the TOS of lemmy.world and has been for a long time.

    We are having an internal discussion to see if there’s room to lower the age to 16 and if we can make exceptions for federated users.

    I hope you see that this really isn’t meant as a powertrip, and we are just trying to protect the Lemmy.world site.

    Sorry if I do not respond to comments quickly, it’s late in my timezone.

      • Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        Yea, I agree, and I would personally be for that. But I am not well versed in the law, and don’t have any stake in the legal side of it all except for me liking lemmy.world, so it’s not my decision.

        I really hope people understand where we as admins are coming from, we really take no enjoyment out of banning anyone (except for spammers).

        • Blazingtransfem98@discuss.online
          0·
          4 months ago

          I really hope people understand where we as admins are coming from, we really take no enjoyment out of banning anyone (except for spammers).

          That’s one of the most transparent lies I’ve heard. Power corrupts, and I’ve seen plenty of lemmy.world admins who certainly do enjoy it, and who do it to people to prove a point or as a knee jerk reaction to disagreement. You can call it whatever you want to call, you can deny this fact but it does happen and I’ve seen it myself, and I’d prefer you don’t try to feed me lies I’m smart enough to see right through.