Removal of piracy communities
Hello world!
Some of you will already have noticed that we have removed some piracy related communities from Lemmy.World during the last day.
Lack of communication
First off, we want to address the lack of communication.
Not everyone in our current admin team has been with us long enough to be aware of the previous issues and discussions related to these communities and the impact this has on our community.
We should absolutely have published this announcement when or before we removed the communities, not hours later. After realizing this mistake, we would have liked to write this a lot earlier already, but we were all busy with irl things, that we just didn’t have time for it.
Lemmy.World is run by volunteers on their personal time, nobody here gets paid for what we do.
Removed communities
Next, we want to explain how we got to the decision to remove these communities.
!crackwatch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
A lot of the recent content posted to this community included images instructing users to visit a specific website to obtain a copy of the release that the post is about. These instructions were in the form of Type in Google: visit-this.domain. The domain referenced in these posts is entirely focused on video game piracy and providing people with access to copyright infringing material.
While there may be legal differences between whether one is linking to specific content on a domain or just linking to the domain itself, such as linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_piracy compared to linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/, we do not consider this to be clear enough in laws and previous lawsuits that linking to just the domain is acceptable, if that domain is primarily about distributing copyright infringing material. We therefore do not allow linking to such domains. Additionally, we do not see a significant difference between posting a link directly to a website and embedding said link in an image, so we treat them equally.
!piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
This community is, for the most part, just about discussing various topics related to piracy. We do not at all mind discussion about this topic, and if it had been limited to that, this community would be fine.
This community, however, contains a pinned Megathread post by a community moderator, which, through a few levels of a pastebin-like site, provides an aggregated overview of various sources of content. Some of these sources are entirely legal content, but it intentionally includes various other references, such as the website referred to from the CrackWatch community, which are primarily intended for copyright infringement.
lemmy.dbzer0.com is willing to accept this content on their instance, as well as the potential legal risk coming from this, which they’re free to do.
We do not plan to defederate from lemmy.dbzer0.com, but we will continue to remove communities that are directly facilitating copyright infringement. @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com, the admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com, is a great person, and we have no problems with him as a person. This is just a matter of different risk tolerance.
!piracy@lemmy.ml
Same as !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
Why have the piracy communities been restored previously? What changed?
Currently, based on the memories of team members involved in the decision back then, it appears that there was a misunderstanding between the community moderators and Lemmy.World admins in how the community will be moderated going forward, as well as which types of content are allowed.
Lemmy.World expected/assumed that links to websites primarily focused on facilitating distribution of pirated content would be disallowed in these communities.
The community moderators however do tolerate references to such websites, as long as people are not linking to individual content directly.
We suspect that this may have been missed during our original review when restoring the communities, which lead us to previously restoring these communities.
Why now?
We have recently received a takedown request for content not directly related to these communities, but it prompted us to review other piracy related content and communities.
Terms of Service clarification
Last, as we’ve reviewed our Terms of Service, we have updated our wording here to make it more clear what is and what isn’t allowed when it comes to piracy. This was already covered by “Do not post illegal content of any type. Do not engage in any activity that may […] facilitate or provide access to illegal transactions” in section 4, but we have now added section 4.1 to better explain this.
We apologize for the delays in communication.
To an extent - lets not forget that a bunch of identifying information is visible to admins, not to users, not publicly. Which is why a privacy policy (such as the one on lemmy.world) is so important, and why it would seem so frustrating when basic legal practices are functionally ignored. What’s the difference between a random troll sending cease and desists out, and a certain corrupt POS Texas AG requesting all the folks who have ever commented that they were trans? Both can be completely and utterly unfounded, and yet still bring you into a lengthy court battle.
I have to disagree there, because competency comes into play. Speaking to a lawyer and being aware of how to say “No” properly is important. Knowing how to document bad requests and bad faith actors. Having someone you can reach out to and follow-up with for an unsubstantiated nonsense request from a hate monger is important.
Rolling over immediately and preemptively making decisions on unrelated communities however… that doesn’t provide me with warm and fuzzies.
To be clear here - I am not a lawyer. I have run forums before (and I can guarantee the issues around piracy and illegal materials that are bound to be posted have not changed), I worked with lawyers, I carried general liability insurance, etc. These aren’t specialty things, this is what basic operations looks like.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of that personally. I’m one of the people who called out an admin for not actually talking to a lawyer though - and frankly I think they should have done that months and months ago. Even just to have found someone available who could provide services as needed.
as I’m very tired right now, I only want to comment on one of the arguments/questions you brought up.
you’re asking for the difference between taking down content and providing information about users.
its very simple actually. sharing non-public data is a very different story than removing access to otherwise public information, whether it’s originally coming from Lemmy.World or elsewhere.
when we take down content, even if it’s more than legally strictly necessary, the harm of such a takedown is at most someone no longer being able to consume other content or interact with a community. there is no irreversible harm done to anyone. if we decided to reinstate the community, then everyone would still be able to do the same thing they were able to do in the beginning. the only thing people may be missing out on would be some time and convenience.
if we were asked to provide information, such as your example of a Texas AG, this would neither be reversible nor have low impact on people’s lives. in my opinion, these two cases., despite both having a legal context, couldn’t be much further from each other.
You’ll have to excuse me here, but I am currently having a hard time believing anyone from the lemmy.world team at the moment.
What I’m referring to, and was not replied to, was the difference between two requests made on a legal basis. What I did not refer to was content access.
What the .world admin team has shown me is that they don’t understand the legal aspects, made assumptions about them rather than actually seeking counsel, did not actually communicate in a way that has been repeatedly promised by the team, and didn’t even bother to reach out to alert other directly related admins.
I’m a “show, don’t tell” sort of person. And what has been shown is that I do not wish to be on lemmy.world any longer, in part because I’m really going to have a hard time trusting any of you after this.
Not due to the decision necessarily, but the approach and actions. I hope you can understand why that would be the case.
maybe I misunderstood your comment, I read your Texas AG example as asking for information about users. did you mean Texas AG asking for the removal of comments where people are stating they’re trans?