• PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    Sag wasn’t accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself.

    He posted on “Fediverse@lemmy.world”

    • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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.world’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
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

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

        … what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the service’s comms?

        Is it impossible to make use of the service unless you’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 admin’s instance?

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

          They’re not making use of the service, though. That’s a misunderstanding. They’re making use of their home servers copy of the other servers community. The user isn’t directly using the remote service.

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

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            2 days ago

            They’re not making use of the service, though. That’s a misunderstanding. They’re making use of their home servers copy of the other servers community. The user isn’t directly using the remote service.

            What happens when a user posts to that comm?

            Does that user’s post remain only on their home server’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
              ·
              2 days ago

              That’s irrelevant. The post wasn’t made via lemmy.zip. we have a copy of the post but the user didn’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, I’m not suddenly subject to the Gmail ToS.

              Otherwise I’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
                15
                ·
                2 days ago

                That’s irrelevant. The post wasn’t made via lemmy.zip. we have a copy of the post but the user didn’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 ‘interacting’ 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, I’m not suddenly subject to the Gmail ToS.

                Bruh, that’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
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I honestly don’t know what you’re on about at this point.

                  You’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 don’t hold your data, I can’t delete your account or prevent you from accessing your home server. I am not providing you a service in any way. It’s really that simple.

                  Your email thing is wrong btw. Emails can be banned (conduct) by another server, but the account can’t be deleted by the other server (service). You’re confusing the two.

                  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    16
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    You’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 don’t hold your data,

                    See above

                    I can’t delete your account or prevent you from accessing your home server. I am not providing you a service in any way. It’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 can’t be deleted by the other server (service). You’re confusing the two.

                    … okay? .world hasn’t ‘deleted’ the account in question? So either you’re very confused about what has happened here, or your attempt at reconciling the email metaphor with your position has proved my point.

        • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          … what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the service’s comms?

          Using lemmy.word to access content. Using https://feddit.uk/post/25339637 to view the content is making use of feddit.uk’s services, using https://lemmy.world/post/26548121 is making use of lemmy.world’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 you’re a user signed up on the service?

          I wouldn’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 admin’s instance?

          No? Community spaces can still have rules that govern themselves (that’s why sidebars federate), it’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
            17
            ·
            2 days ago

            Using lemmy.word to access content. Using https://feddit.uk/post/25339637 to view the content is making use of feddit.uk’s services, using https://lemmy.world/post/26548121 is making use of lemmy.world’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 wouldn’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 isn’t making use of the service, so long as it’s not a .world account?

            No? Community spaces can still have rules that govern themselves (that’s why sidebars federate), it’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
              16
              ·
              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 isn’t making use of the service, so long as it’s not a .world account?

              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. 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?

              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?

              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.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                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.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  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.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    15
                    ·
                    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.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        4.0: By agreeing to this section of the document, you accept that:

        4.0.0: You may only use Lemmy.zip if you can clearly understand and actively comply with the terms laid out on this page.

        4.0.1: You have not previously been permanently banned from the website.

        4.0.2: You are at least 18 years of age and over the regulated minimum age defined by your local law to access Lemmy.zip.

          • Demigodrick@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Not if they’re a federated user. They’re not my user to worry about. Even if they say they’re not 18 it doesn’t apply imo, they’re not interacting directly with lemmy.zip.

            You have to agree that you’re over 18 to use lemmy.zip directly as per ToS

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              2 days ago

              Not if they’re a federated user. They’re not my user to worry about. Even if they say they’re not 18 it doesn’t apply imo, they’re not interacting directly with lemmy.zip.

              4.0.2: You are at least 18 years of age and over the regulated minimum age defined by your local law to access Lemmy.zip.

              Does posting to Lemmy.zip not count as accessing?

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

                Just replied to another of your comments, but in summary no. They’re not one of my users and I don’t hold any data on them nor do they access lemmy.zip directly.

                • Microw@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  12
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  and I don’t hold any data on them

                  This here is the relevant question imo. Could the federation put relevant remote users’ data onto your server? Well, not any user-specific info like the mail adress they signed up with etc. But could a judge rule some specific public post to be relevant personal data? I am not sure.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Just replied to another of your comments, but in summary no. They’re not one of my users and I don’t hold any data on them nor do they access lemmy.zip directly.

                  Then the ToS don’t apply to anyone except your own users? Those who are signed up on your instance, I mean?

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

                    No, anyone that isn’t having a service from lemmy.zip isn’t beholden to our ToS. Our CoC on the other hand we do enforce as part of the site rules when interacting with lemmy.zip communities.