Lemmy.World ToS and the murder of the UHC CEO
Lemmy.World ToS and the murder of the UHC CEO
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
We’ve tried the whole voting thing for 40 years now. We’ve tried the whole justice system thing for 40 years now.
It doesn’t work. Make peaceful change impossible and violent revolution becomes inevitable. Hope this CEO is just the first to fall.
Our entire system is corrupt from top to bottom and there’s no more playing nice.
The USA hasn't tried shit, thats why we're in this mess.
Obamacare was originally a single payer bill which was defeated in the senate.
Since then we elected more pure privatization officials. We gave the Biden admin a conservative congress and SCOTUS.
We had a big shiny lever that said (STOP KILLING SICK PEOPLE) and we refused to pull it for over a decade.
Don’t forget it was DEMOCRAT joe Lieberman who single-handedly ranked single payer.
I do not forgive nor forget what the democrats have done. They’re so full of fucking shit and there’s always a spoiler on their side to torpedo any kind of remotely progressive legislation. And then they’ll blame republicans saying they don’t have the votes and the stupid masses eat it right up.
I vote murder at this point. Also it’s been like four+ decades now, not one.
Joe Leiberman got old and died age 82 in 2013, but we still got medicaid expansion out of it if nothing else.
Meanwhile every single Republican voted no on even that.
This is a great example of the point I was making: Vote Democrat and you will get more or possibly even all healthcare covered. Vote Republican and they will do everything in their power to take it all away.
Cool, democrats have had power on and off for years. I’m 35. 8 years with Clinton, 8 years with obama, 4 years with biden. Nothings changed for the better. Healthcare “access” is fucking bullshit if it doesn’t involve actual care.
Pay premiums just to not get care. Great system. Thank you JOE LIEBERMAN for single-handedly killing the single payer option. Oh he’s dead? Cool, there will be another spoiler to replace him. Cue Manchin and Sinema. Or the unheard of senate parliamentarian when it comes to raising the minimum wage for the first time since fucking 2009!
Democrats never had as many votes as when they passed the ACA. It took 59 Dem +1 Inde. Then people voted them out. They literally haven't had the power since then.
Clown.
A senator from Connecticut, the insurance capital of the world, became the industry’s go-to guy. Insurers had spent years investing in Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat-turned-Independent. During the reform debate, the watchdog group Public Campaign Action Fund, (now called EveryVoice), called Lieberman an “insurance puppet,”noting that insurers had contributed nearly half a million dollars to his campaigns over the years.
The Democrats needed Lieberman’s vote to get reform passed, and insurers knew it. Shortly before the Senate was set to vote on the bill, Lieberman said he would vote for the bill only if the public option was stripped out.
1 Dem and every single Republican, who also voted against the medicaid expansion and protections for preexisting conditions version of the bill.