Some good ideas in this bill, care leavers given some priority for example, but as always with Welsh Gov - where’s the money? This will just cause even higher council tax rises. And with what properties do they expect LAs to provide to people? It’ll just see an increase in HMOs and crime rates as the private market will see an opportunity to force as many people into one building as possible (moreso than already)

I agree with you.

Piefed is great, but there is so much bias built into it. Say what you want about lemmy’s devs, AFAIK there is none of their bias built in to lemmy.

The whole jump to piefed movement has not sat well with me. I get the extra features, but for it to really be something for everyone the dev has to consider their approach. Who knows what might be targetted next because the dev doesn’t like it. (Hyperbole btw, but its akin to censorship)

Calling piefed.zip negligent because we give users control of their experience speaks volumes about either a poorly thought out system or a purposeful bias which shouldn’t exist in federated services. At least add the csam or far right instances to it if its a genuine tool, or remove it entirely

Its a plugin so not default behaviour, although I solidly believe that it should be built in.

Yes there is potentially the option to block country codes in Piefed. We haven’t fully utilised that yet but its on the todo list :)

Honestly, country is gripped by clowns.

Would not be at all surprised to find the commissioner has shares or a financial interest in Age Verification companies.

Giving adults free access to high quality porn in exchange for stopping children using VPNs would probably be fairly effective.

Hey dont share my email out 😡

I do give a fuck.

I give a fuck about creating a welcoming safe space on this instance.

I give a fuck that we act with integrity and fairness.

I don’t give a fuck that it hurts your feelings to be called out, nor do I have time to respond to emails that are just more justifications of your transphobia.

We issued a temp ban as a warning. Instead you harass my admin team and bad mouth admins from other instances, while continuing to try and justify yourself.

I suggest you find another instance that will accept your behaviour, because its not welcome here.

Thanks!

Hey! Can you double check its not in your spam folder?

If there’s nothing, then please send an email over to [email protected], include your username, and we can have a look for you!

Hey, we are aware - I’ve made a comment here: https://lemmy.zip/post/40323214/19304384

Tldr - try with a vpn!

That’s very kind of you ❤️

@[email protected] thanks for cursing lemmy.zip 😭

We have a hook into the account creation process via the api, and when a new accout is created we basically mimic the user inserting personal instance blocks directly in the db. We also pm new users on account creation so we include info on how to remove the blocks there. It’s about the best in-the-middle solution i can do at the moment!

I agree fully with you around the moderation tools built in - it really needs some development. We do a lot via our bot to try and provide some better tooling and especially focus on the onboarding part of a new user. I think 1.0 includes some improvements here.

I can’t say how effective all of this work has been for user retention, but I’m hoping it helps get a few people away from reddit!

(just to chime in uninvited to say that we have a bit of code that inserts blocks for hexbear and lemmygrad for new users, so the new user has the option to remove the block and see that sort of content if they want to - we’re all about choice!)

No, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how federation works.

The user is on lemm.ee. When they make a post, they’re posting to a local copy of the community, and never directly onto the server. Thats not how federation works and so your points are all totally invalid.

At no point does the user ever make contact themselves with that external server. They never physically touch lemmy.world in their actions, everything they do is on lemm.ee, and so lemm.ee’s Terms of Service is the one that applies to the user.

As has already been hashed out multiple times, Lemmy.world’s ToS is not relevant here and does not apply to an external user.

This is totally up for debate, and you don’t understand it. That’s fine, learn from people who do know and take it with some humility.

Oh and if you still don’t get why its important and how wrong you are - if you were right, then every single post you make is federated to thousands of different fedi servers. Suddenly, you would be legally in contract with all those thousands of servers and their ToS. Imagine if I put in mine that users have to pay a small sum of currency for every post that they make on my server. In your incorrect definition, you would be liable for that just like lemmy.world have applied their ToS against someone who isn’t one of their users.

What lemmy.world should do is update their moderation policies/code of conduct/whatever to specifically say that they will ban you if they suspect you are under 18. Its such an easy fix. This never had to be so wrong in the first place.

It’s totally wild how many people who don’t understand it are trying to weigh in with their incorrect opinion.

I know it’s a very specific point this centres around, being that the ToS doesn’t apply to you, but it needs debate and discussion so mistakes like this don’t happen in the future.

It absolutely is a signable agreement, you agreed to it when you signed up to lemmy.world 🤦‍♂️ you even have to specifically type that you agree these days, I believe.

And yes, by using the website you agree to it - except (as i and others have to keep pointing out) the user did not use lemmy.worlds website at any point. That isn’t how federation works. To suggest it does is just ignorance of the topic.

Yes, we agree that they can ban them for any reason they choose, that’s not up for debate, but they cannot apply a clause from their terms of service and specifically cite their terms of service, because it doesn’t apply to the remote user.

The largest lemmy instance should be held to account for their actions (as should any lemmy instance). The admin didn’t even have to state a reason for the ban, but by saying its the ToS they’ve invalidated their action. It’s not rocket science if you take two minutes to understand how federation and ToS works.

A terms of service is a legal agreement between a user and the host. The user in this case did not access lemmy.world and is not their user, so cannot be bound by the ToS. The same way you cannot be forced into an optional legal agreement that you haven’t read or seen.

There is no question that the lemmy.world admins can ban someone from their site if they wish to, but claiming its for a violation of ToS is completely incorrect. The lemmy.world admin in this case decided to arbitrarily ban someone because they say they’re under 18, even though there is no legal consideration for lemmy.world here.

Can they do this? Yes. It’s their site. But they are incorrect to refer to their ToS for this ban, because the user is not bound by this.

The action taken was outside of any stated lemmy.world policy on moderation.

I’ve let you drag me off track, that’s my own fault. I actually kind of get your point about a proxy service, but we’re obviously both looking at this in different ways. In your way, that would automatically mean that every post you make, even locally on lemmy.world, as it is sent to every single server that lemmy.world federates with, makes you subject to every single ToS for those servers. That’s just not true though. That’s not how it works.

Importantly, back to the key point, the ToS for lemmy.world say:

No one under 18 years of age or under the regulated minimum age defined by your local law (whichever is higher), is allowed to use or access the website.

They are not using nor are they accessing the “website”. Is their message being sent between servers? Sure, that’s federation. Did the user use or access the website? No.

If that’s the line lemmy.world wants to take, they need to update their ToS to reflect that federated users are also subject to that rule and it applies to federated traffic. At least they’d have a leg to stand on then.

As it stands, they’ve incorrectly interpreted their own ToS. Again, this is analogous to email. Sending an email does not automatically make you subject to an agreement with the receiving company, with a document you’ve not had sight of. They can still moderate that email as they see fit, but the receiving party isn’t providing a service.

Anyway I’ve said all there is to say. I’m sure we’ll continue to disagree.