• PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    515·
    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 aren’t answering the question about posting content.

    They didn’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, it’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 Cloudfair’s TOS?

    That’s not even close to equivalent. If the ToS for dbzer0 included, say, something ridiculous, like “Don’t use the letter S”, 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.

    It’s perfectly within lemmy.world’s remit to ban a user for whatever reasons they feel like, I just don’t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.

    If ToS aren’t going to be enforced, you may as well not have them.

    • flamingos-cant@feddit.ukEnglish
      161·
      2 days ago

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

      It won’t federate to anyone, it’s the Group actor that forwards content to subscribers.

      That’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.world’s service, then I don’t see how I wouldn’t be a user of Cloudfair’s services in that case. I’ve still technically initiated an interaction with Cloudfair servers, even if indirectly.

      If the ToS for dbzer0 included, say, something ridiculous, like “Don’t use the letter S”, 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, I’m not a dbzer0 user so I don’t think I’m subject to their TOS. If it was in the comm or instance rules, then I’d be violating those, but TOS is for users of the service.

      If ToS aren’t going to be enforced, you may as well not have them.

      Where are you getting the idea that I’m saying TOS shouldn’t be enforced? I’m not saying that, I’m disputing who it applies to.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        315·
        2 days ago

        It won’t federate to anyone, it’s the Group actor that forwards content to subscribers.

        Okay. So again, what’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.world’s service, then I don’t see how I wouldn’t be a user of Cloudfair’s services in that case. I’ve still technically initiated an interaction with Cloudfair servers, even if indirectly.

        Because Cloudflare’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 I’m saying TOS shouldn’t be enforced? I’m not saying that, I’m disputing who it applies to.

        You said, and I quote:

        I just don’t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.

        • flamingos-cant@feddit.ukEnglish
          152·
          2 days ago

          Okay. So again, what’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 I’m saying TOS shouldn’t be enforced? I’m not saying that, I’m disputing who it applies to.

          You said, and I quote:

          I just don’t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.

          Remote user, i.e. someone who’s account isn’t on lemmy.world. Local accounts on lemmy.world should still be subject to the TOS.

          • Microw@lemm.ee
            310·
            2 days ago

            The problem remains that the second lemmy.world allows content created by someone underage to federate onto their server, they probably have some legal responsibility regarding that data. And if there is personal information in there, it gets tricky pretty fast in some jurisdictions.

            LW don’t want legal problems, that’s literally all there is to this.

            Whether LW can enforce their ToS on remote users is a different question, and even if the answer to that is “no” then they could still include that clause in every single LW community’s rules.

            • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
              42·
              2 days ago

              Whether LW can enforce their ToS on remote users is a different question, and even if the answer to that is “no” then they could still include that clause in every single LW community’s rules.

              If they do, we’re going to see a wave of communities migration away from LW