• flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    Ā·
    2 days ago

    And I disagree that that counts as making use of the service. Lemmy also sends Webmentions, if someone with a world account posts a blog post from someone and world then sends a Webmention to that blog, does lemmy.worldā€™s TOS apply to the blogger? TOS applying over distributed systems is frankly impracticable.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      16
      Ā·
      2 days ago

      And I disagree that that counts as making use of the service.

      ā€¦ what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the serviceā€™s comms?

      Is it impossible to make use of the service unless youā€™re a user signed up on the service?

      If so, should it be regarded that admins have no authority to bar any user from another instance from the adminā€™s instance?

      • Demigodrick@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        Ā·
        2 days ago

        Theyā€™re not making use of the service, though. Thatā€™s a misunderstanding. Theyā€™re making use of their home servers copy of the other servers community. The user isnā€™t directly using the remote service.

        Itā€™d be like having two email companies, one only allowing over 18s to have an account. You wouldnā€™t say youā€™re making use of the other email service if you send an email to them. Youā€™re not beholden to their ToS or CoC. Same applies here imo.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          16
          Ā·
          2 days ago

          Theyā€™re not making use of the service, though. Thatā€™s a misunderstanding. Theyā€™re making use of their home servers copy of the other servers community. The user isnā€™t directly using the remote service.

          What happens when a user posts to that comm?

          Does that userā€™s post remain only on their home serverā€™s copy of the comm, or does it get federated to the comm they posted to?

          • Demigodrick@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            5
            Ā·
            2 days ago

            Thatā€™s irrelevant. The post wasnā€™t made via lemmy.zip. we have a copy of the post but the user didnā€™t interact at all with our website or our server. Their server did, not the user. Again, email. If I have an Outlook account and send an email to a Gmail account, Iā€™m not suddenly subject to the Gmail ToS.

            Otherwise Iā€™d set up my own email and say anyone that emailed me had to pay me a million bananas as part of my ToS.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              16
              Ā·
              2 days ago

              Thatā€™s irrelevant. The post wasnā€™t made via lemmy.zip. we have a copy of the post but the user didnā€™t interact at all with our website or our server. Their server did, not the user.

              Fucking what.

              If I write a poem and have someone slap it on the local bulletin board for me, have I not interacted with the bulletin board?

              Furthermore, elsewhere you mention interacting as not being accessing (specifically mentioning that ā€˜interactingā€™ only has the CoC applied), but here you claim a lack of interaction as reason for non-enforcement of the ToS.

              Again, email. If I have an Outlook account and send an email to a Gmail account, Iā€™m not suddenly subject to the Gmail ToS.

              Bruh, thatā€™s literally how it works. Why do you think email accounts from other services can be banned from sending to email services? Gmail can (and literally does) run a blocklist, however ineffective, of email accounts from other email services for violating their ToS.

              • Demigodrick@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                18
                arrow-down
                4
                Ā·
                2 days ago

                I honestly donā€™t know what youā€™re on about at this point.

                Youā€™re confusing a code of conduct which is applied to everyone with a terms of service, which i can only apply to people I offer a service to. I donā€™t hold your data, I canā€™t delete your account or prevent you from accessing your home server. I am not providing you a service in any way. Itā€™s really that simple.

                Your email thing is wrong btw. Emails can be banned (conduct) by another server, but the account canā€™t be deleted by the other server (service). Youā€™re confusing the two.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  17
                  Ā·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Youā€™re confusing a code of conduct which is applied to everyone with a terms of service, which i can only apply to people I offer a service to.

                  Like hosting their content?

                  Content like text posts?

                  Content that goes and is hosted on your servers when a user is federated and not banned from your instance?

                  I donā€™t hold your data,

                  See above

                  I canā€™t delete your account or prevent you from accessing your home server. I am not providing you a service in any way. Itā€™s really that simple.

                  How does any of that preclude providing a service?

                  Your email thing is wrong btw. Emails can be banned (conduct) by another server, but the account canā€™t be deleted by the other server (service). Youā€™re confusing the two.

                  ā€¦ okay? .world hasnā€™t ā€˜deletedā€™ the account in question? So either youā€™re very confused about what has happened here, or your attempt at reconciling the email metaphor with your position has proved my point.

                  • Demigodrick@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    20
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    Ā·
                    2 days ago

                    Let me go over this again for you.

                    When you joined lemmy.world, you agreed to their ToS. I have not joined lemmy.world, therefore their ToS does not apply to me. They owe me nothing, and cannot delete my account nor any of my users from lemmy.zip. they can ban my users from lemmy.world, remove their posts etc, but theyā€™re only doing that to their copies of the posts. The original copies are on lemmy.zip and lemmy.worlds actions do not affect any other instances that has a copy of the lemmy.zip original.

                    Therefore they do not provide my users with a service. If lemmy.world shut down tomorrow, lemmy.zip users would still have service while lemmy.world users would not.

                    Similarly a website i have never been to might have a ToS, but I have not agreed to that ToS, therefore it cannot apply to me. Said website is not providing me a service.

                    So weā€™ve established who is providing who a service in this scenario, which is lemm.ee providing a service to their user. That user isnā€™t using lemmy.world, therefore isnā€™t receiving a service and isnā€™t beholden to their ToS.

                    Lemmy.world have banned that user from their website because the user is saying their under 18. But they claim to have done this because in their ToS they say they donā€™t provide a service to under 18s. But that user has not agreed to the ToS.

                    While lemmy.world is entitled to do whatever they want imo, itā€™s their website, to say itā€™s because of their ToS is incorrectly applying it. They arenā€™t providing a service to the user. Lemm.ee is.

                    Again, they can do whatever they want, itā€™s their website, but its not how it applies to lemmy.zip. If I was to enact that policy, it would be under the code of conduct as that is what is applied to moderation of remote instances.

      • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        2 days ago

        ā€¦ what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the serviceā€™s comms?

        Using lemmy.word to access content. Using https://feddit.uk/post/25339637 to view the content is making use of feddit.ukā€™s services, using https://lemmy.world/post/26548121 is making use of lemmy.worldā€™s services. Would using an archive to access a lemmy.world post be making use of the service?

        Is it impossible to make use of the service unless youā€™re a user signed up on the service?

        I wouldnā€™t say so, even going to lemmy.world without an account would be making use of the service in my mind.

        If so, should it be regarded that admins have no authority to bar any user from another instance from the adminā€™s instance?

        No? Community spaces can still have rules that govern themselves (thatā€™s why sidebars federate), itā€™s just that terms of service are for people making use of the service.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          18
          Ā·
          2 days ago

          Using lemmy.word to access content. Using https://feddit.uk/post/25339637 to view the content is making use of feddit.ukā€™s services, using https://lemmy.world/post/26548121 is making use of lemmy.worldā€™s services. Would using an archive to access a lemmy.world post be making use of the service?

          Can you post to Lemmy.world using an archive?

          If not, the question seems of dubious relevance.

          I wouldnā€™t say so, even going to lemmy.world without an account would be making use of the service in my mind.

          But going to Lemmy.world with an account isnā€™t making use of the service, so long as itā€™s not a .world account?

          No? Community spaces can still have rules that govern themselves (thatā€™s why sidebars federate), itā€™s just that terms of service are for people making use of the service.

          But if no user from another instance is ever using any of the instances they post to, save for their own, how can an admin have the right to ban them?

          • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            Ā·
            2 days ago

            Can you post to Lemmy.world using an archive?

            If not, the question seems of dubious relevance.

            Federation between instances is like an archive in a state of flux. You can still access feddit.de content despite the service being down.

            But going to Lemmy.world with an account isnā€™t making use of the service, so long as itā€™s not a .world account?

            They didnā€™t go to lemmy.world with an account? They went to https://lemm.ee/c/fediverse@lemmy.world with a lemm.ee account. For my comment to reach you, it has to go through Cloudfair as lemmy.world uses them for DDoS protection. Am I subject to Cloudfairā€™s TOS?

            But if no user from another instance is ever using any of the instances they post to, save for their own, how can an admin have the right to ban them?

            Itā€™s perfectly within lemmy.worldā€™s remit to ban a user for whatever reasons they feel like, I just donā€™t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              16
              Ā·
              2 days ago

              Federation between instances is like an archive in a state of flux. You can still access feddit.de content despite the service being down.

              You arenā€™t answering the question about posting content.

              They didnā€™t go to lemmy.world with an account? They went to https://lemm.ee/c/fediverse@lemmy.world with a lemm.ee account.

              Okay, well, they can still go there, itā€™s just that their content no longer federates to lemmy.world. I guess everyone should be happy?

              For my comment to reach you, it has to go through Cloudfair as lemmy.world uses them for DDoS protection. Am I subject to Cloudfairā€™s TOS?

              Thatā€™s not even close to equivalent. If the ToS for dbzer0 included, say, something ridiculous, like ā€œDonā€™t use the letter Sā€, and you used the letter S, would you posting here be a violation of the ToS, or not? Regardless of whether you think the ToS is reasonable.

              Itā€™s perfectly within lemmy.worldā€™s remit to ban a user for whatever reasons they feel like, I just donā€™t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.

              If ToS arenā€™t going to be enforced, you may as well not have them.

              • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                1
                Ā·
                2 days ago

                Okay, well, they can still go there, itā€™s just that their content no longer federates to lemmy.world. I guess everyone should be happy?

                It wonā€™t federate to anyone, itā€™s the Group actor that forwards content to subscribers.

                Thatā€™s not even close to equivalent.

                I think it is actually. If posting to lemmy.world comm, who then forwards that content to comm subs, makes me a user of lemmy.worldā€™s service, then I donā€™t see how I wouldnā€™t be a user of Cloudfairā€™s services in that case. Iā€™ve still technically initiated an interaction with Cloudfair servers, even if indirectly.

                If the ToS for dbzer0 included, say, something ridiculous, like ā€œDonā€™t use the letter Sā€, and you used the letter S, would you posting here be a violation of the ToS, or not? Regardless of whether you think the ToS is reasonable.

                Well no, Iā€™m not a dbzer0 user so I donā€™t think Iā€™m subject to their TOS. If it was in the comm or instance rules, then Iā€™d be violating those, but TOS is for users of the service.

                If ToS arenā€™t going to be enforced, you may as well not have them.

                Where are you getting the idea that Iā€™m saying TOS shouldnā€™t be enforced? Iā€™m not saying that, Iā€™m disputing who it applies to.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  16
                  Ā·
                  2 days ago

                  It wonā€™t federate to anyone, itā€™s the Group actor that forwards content to subscribers.

                  Okay. So again, whatā€™s the problem? Everyone should be happy.

                  I think it is actually. If posting to lemmy.world comm, who then forwards that content to comm subs, makes me a user of lemmy.worldā€™s service, then I donā€™t see how I wouldnā€™t be a user of Cloudfairā€™s services in that case. Iā€™ve still technically initiated an interaction with Cloudfair servers, even if indirectly.

                  Because Cloudflareā€™s whole deal is that they provide a service to sites, not users.

                  Humor me for a moment - if you go to a website, directly, do you have to abide by their terms of service?

                  Where are you getting the idea that Iā€™m saying TOS shouldnā€™t be enforced? Iā€™m not saying that, Iā€™m disputing who it applies to.

                  You said, and I quote:

                  I just donā€™t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.

                  • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    16
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    Ā·
                    2 days ago

                    Okay. So again, whatā€™s the problem? Everyone should be happy.

                    No one on lemmy.world will see anything Sag posts, ~ 1/3 of all Lemmy users. Not the end of the world, but it can be demotivating.

                    Humor me for a moment - if you go to a website, directly, do you have to abide by their terms of service?

                    No, a TOS is a contract, you have to agree to it to be subject to it.

                    Where are you getting the idea that Iā€™m saying TOS shouldnā€™t be enforced? Iā€™m not saying that, Iā€™m disputing who it applies to.

                    You said, and I quote:

                    I just donā€™t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.

                    Remote user, i.e. someone whoā€™s account isnā€™t on lemmy.world. Local accounts on lemmy.world should still be subject to the TOS.