https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39616364?scrollToComments=true
https://lemmy.world/u/sag@lemm.ee
https://lemmy.world/modlog/?userId=1957570
Underage, you will be unbanned when you turn 18 (happy birthday in advance)
PTB. This is unreasonable. Also trying to prevent teenagers from accessing the internet is just going to lead to all teenagers just lying about their age. It’s not going to stop it. It’s just going to mean they can’t discuss their actual opinions and issues honestly. It would also reinforce the need to lie to be part of culture, which is just not healthy.
Teenagers lying about their age on the internet is as old as teenagers on the internet.
Keeping the age barriers in place is good anyway. It communicates to younger people clearly that the content is not considered suitable for them. It gives them a moment to think and reconsider.
Participating in online culture might be generally not healthy for adults as well.
Did you know? IG is pretty restrict about NSFW content? But does it stop anything? No.
Tumblr banning porn just made porn unlabelable, so I cannot filter it out in any way. It also gets posted to random hashtags (there is porn in #halloween there)
I hope you’re independently wealthy and can afford legal fees.
What’s most important is that you got to feel smug.
What’s most important is that you got to feel smug.
What’s most important is not having every fucking instance other than .world hanging from a legal thread. Isn’t your instance based in the E fucking U? That’s not exactly the wild fucking west as far as legal requirements for hosts go.
Believe it or not, I don’t want any of this shit going down. I’m not fucking 20, I’m not full of vim and vigor. I don’t get a fucking thrill out of fighting with people online anymore. I question why I stay in these communities when everyone seems content to play chicken on the railroad tracks.
I don’t get a fucking thrill out of fighting with people online anymore.
I find this hard to believe
That’s literally the only reason he does it, otherwise he would’ve stopped a long time ago.
after two decades of unfettered internet access, I still love picking fights.
maybe I’m just built different
I find this hard to believe
I find it tedious and miserable. I engage for the same reason I can’t leave trash on the floor - the inaction irritates me more than the tedious action. If I find trash on the floor constantly in a public area, I’m more likely to leave than become a super-cleaner.
… bye, I guess.
Man, that constant “I’m the only adult in the room” vibe you try to have is getting
obnoxiousold.Man, that constant “I’m the only adult in the room” vibe you try to have is getting
obnoxiousold.Yeah, I fucking agree. It’s getting real old being the only adult in the room. I didn’t realize the admins of most Lemmy instances were just winging it, thinking “Well, when it comes crashing down, it comes crashing down 😊”
Utter zero-foresight techbro shite. Jesus Christ.
Sadly You’re not the real adult in the room. You’re just a smuglord who’s way too high on the smell of their own farts.
Sadly You’re not the real adult in the room. You’re just a smuglord who’s way too high on the smell of their own farts.
Legit, I thought you took your instance more seriously than this. This is basic covering-your-ass shit.
Aw, they actually did the ban. That’s unfortunate.
On one hand, yes, legal liability and all that, but on the other hand half the site is copyright violations. The law only matters sometimes. I say this as someone who has hosted web communities myself, there’s no reason to be banning for something like age on these instances, especially when we’re talking 16 and not 12. It’s unenforceable and trivial enough that there’s no legal pressure to do so.
@sag@lemm.ee FYI since I don’t think you’ve seen the new comments on your initial post
Yeah, it seems a little odd to do a full ban for anyone under 18. Do they feel that all communities on there are not appropriate for minors?
Yes and I fully agree. Online interactions are unrated by PEGI for a reason.
Afaik, there are laws and regulations that make it more difficult to collect personal information about minors including their email address. I imagine the admins understandably just don’t want to deal with that.
That’s not really relevant in this case though, federated profiles don’t contain any of that information. They just contain the public posts and comments and anything the person might have added to their profile bio directly. They don’t contain personal information of any kind.
Doesn’t matter if it’s public or not, at least not in the US when it comes to COPA. If you’re allowing children under 13 to register with an email address, you have to get parental permission: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-six-step-compliance-plan-your-business
Edit: many states also have their own laws governing children joining social media platforms: https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2025/03/10/childrens-online-privacy-recent-actions-by-the-states-and-the-ftc/
Eh, kinda half and half. Kids these days seem to forget rule #1 of the internet: if you’re under 18 never admit it anywhere, anytime, for any reason.
Hell, don’t even admit you made your account when you were underage, but aren’t now. I’ve seen regular forums and MMORPGs ban people who admitted they were underage at the time they made the account, but not anymore
I feel like the rules of the internet should be taught again, or at least particularly stuff like “don’t feed the trolls”. All of these engagement based algorithms are too focused on pushing bait content.
I’m half and half. I get it, liability and all.
I do think it’s healthy for young people to get more info outside of the bubble of their family and school and we got away with crazy shit on the internet back in the day.
But that was also when the internet was relatively new and a lot of sketchy shit was being done to kids online during that time. Governments today are cracking down on sites that allow kids to use them, and no one wants to be the site admin who convinced yet another European country to draft draconian “think of the children” anti-privacy laws.
The other part of it too is, c’mon, basically rule #1 of using the internet is never admit when you’re underage. Like every other Millennial out there, I was born on Jan 1, 1960.
Gonna go against the grain here and say YDI.
As others have mentioned, liability. The hosts of Lemmy instances are doing an incredible service enabling us to use this platform for free. And in providing that service, they are also assuming a significant amount of risk in a rather volatile legal environment. The law views a platform that allows (“targets”) minors very differently from one that is intended only for adults.
Additionally, TOS. Its as simple as that. This is not power tripping, this is just enforcement. Even if there was nothing explicity wrong about the behavior, once age is directly mentioned, liability is opened, and their hands are tied.
As a side note, there is nothing wrong with adult-only community spaces. Sometimes I want to have a discussion without worrying about whether the person on the other end is a literal child - there are enough adults that act like children as it is…
“The law discriminates against and limits the freedom of children, therefore they’re totally justified!”
Yeah ok sure
Wrong way around. The law enforces more protections for children than adults, for which platforms are held to a higher standard.
Specifically, I’m talking about the higher standards for data privacy, user tracking, and content moderation. These are things that are trivial for large companies to implement, but would be a huge hurdle for small teams of unpaid volunteers.
Many people would like you to believe that, the reality is that these laws are designed to keep children away from support networks and just further enforce the idea of parents owning their children. They use these same garbage excuses when talking about children and HRT or puberty blockers, and trying to block trans kids from getting these treatments. They call that “protection” as well.
Things aren’t as they say they are. People aren’t honest about their motives. If that’s new to you, wake up, it’s 2025 people have been lying about the real reasons for decades, it’s not and never has been a new concept.
You make some good points. I agree there are a lot of traditional ideals engrained in our justice system that enforce archaic power structures and perpetuate harm onto vulnerable people. And you’re right, people often use “protecting the children” as an excuse to take more and more rights away from the general populace.
That said, I still don’t think its productive to direct that frustration and anger at a volunteer moderator on a free, nonprofit platform.
For real, this type of apologia is downright disgusting.
Just for clarity, are you saying that all rules and regulation which discriminate against young people are inherently bad? e.g. banning them from consuming tobacco, having gambling adverts placed on their shows or being allowed in nightclubs?
If you’re looking for someone to say it, you’ve got me here. Banning children from tobacco doesn’t stop them from getting it, banning gambling adverts won’t stop them from doing it (cereal box rewards etc) and usually find their ways into nightclubs with alcohol anyways. The only reason these laws exist are to control and subjugate children, not “for their own good.” Such paternalist thought leads to shit like children marriage and any number of different types of child abuse, cause if your kid doesn’t have any rights, what’s stopping the parent from sending their kids to conversion therapy and misgendering then every day?
Fair enough, I think its a rather bizarre take that we shouldnt try stop people who havent fully developed their reasoning capacities from harming themselves but at least you’re consistent.
The fact that you’re even comparing being on Lemmy or probably also Puberty blockers and HRT to Booze and tobacco shows your motives transparently. Maybe instead of making bad faith comparisons to things that have nothing to do with each other you should actually be thinking of the kids who are hurt by the idea of parents owning kids. Like abused children, or trans kids.
I literally just asked to clarify your position, that you chose to project transphobia onto me from that says more about you than me.
The fact that you are comparing access to spaces like Lemmy to drugs, alcohol, and tobacco says enough about your motives to let me know that any further discussion with you is fruitless. You’re trying to get me to say something that you could claim was implying I support kids taking drugs or alcohol so you could say that the “groomer” (me) supports giving children harmful substances. Ignoring the fact that access to spaces like Lemmy, and access to drugs and alcohol aren’t even remotely similar.
ptb
but…
I think it’s great that we can expect actual rules and enforcement from instance admins, and have a chance to suss out the edges of these rules in open fora.
PTB, this seems really like they’re overstepping their bounds, @Demigodrick@lemmy.zip has clarified the matter.
Unfortunately this isn’t the first time Lemmy.world has done something like this using “legal” as an excuse, and probably won’t be the last time. They’re too big so they’ll never get defederated or penalized by any server wishing to stay even remotely relevant so nothing is likely to change.
Damn, i liked sag :(
I think i’m going with a soft PTB from my pov. Tbf dbzer0 is pretty lax on rules, especially towards people outside the instance. I don’t think it’s within my place or anyone else’s to ban someone from such a huge part of the fediverse.
But this highlights the need to decentralize from .world, the fact that a single instance ban can take away such a huge part of the fediverse from a user feels ridiculous.
I get why they did it, but it feels unfair.
I think i’m going with PTB from my pov. Tbf dbzer0 is pretty lax on rules, especially towards people outside the instance. I don’t think it’s within my place or anyone else’s to ban someone from such a huge part of the fediverse.
Then admins have no place banning people?
Yeah, that probably wasn’t a good point.
I feel my point on
But this highlights the need to decentralize from .world, the fact that a single instance ban can take away such a huge part of the fediverse from a user feels ridiculous.
Was probably a better one.
.World is a good instance, but they are too big. Being banned from just any other instance? You can deal with. But being banned off of .world effectively takes away most lemmy content away from you.
Damn RIP then if I got banned from .world after this post I am leaving Lemmy.
Ultimately i understand why they did it, but sag was a great poster.
That’s the main reason why we decided to migrate !france@lemmy.world to !france@jlai.lu : lemmy.world are too big.
Thank you for doing your part 🫡
I willingly blocked .world that place is a toxic cesspool. It also felt too much like reddit.
Yeah, this sort of stuff strikes me as bad for the user affected and for .world, but good for lemmy overall. An active, competent user is being forced to post to non-LW communities exclusively.
Damn RIP then if I got banned from .world after this post I am leaving Lemmy.
I hope he doesn’t.
Agreed. But even if he does, this sort of stuff contributes to a reputation and could lead future users to choose to post to communities on better instances. That’s the part I think would be good for lemmy overall.
Hey, I’m the one that decided to ban this user. I understand the frustration, but it is very much in the TOS of lemmy.world and has been for a long time.
We are having an internal discussion to see if there’s room to lower the age to 16 and if we can make exceptions for federated users.
I hope you see that this really isn’t meant as a powertrip, and we are just trying to protect the Lemmy.world site.
Sorry if I do not respond to comments quickly, it’s late in my timezone.
Disappointing, yet understandable :/ Thank you for replying, and addressing this.
Hello,
Thank you for chiming in. Exceptions for federated users would be nice, especially for someone turning 18 in a few months.
Yea, I agree, and I would personally be for that. But I am not well versed in the law, and don’t have any stake in the legal side of it all except for me liking lemmy.world, so it’s not my decision.
I really hope people understand where we as admins are coming from, we really take no enjoyment out of banning anyone (except for spammers).
Let’s hope that you can work something out!
I really hope people understand where we as admins are coming from, we really take no enjoyment out of banning anyone (except for spammers).
That’s one of the most transparent lies I’ve heard. Power corrupts, and I’ve seen plenty of lemmy.world admins who certainly do enjoy it, and who do it to people to prove a point or as a knee jerk reaction to disagreement. You can call it whatever you want to call, you can deny this fact but it does happen and I’ve seen it myself, and I’d prefer you don’t try to feed me lies I’m smart enough to see right through.
I understand that my comment was ambiguous, I tried to say that the current admins, in my experience, don’t enjoy banning people.
I’m sorry but the “(happy birthday in advance)” doesn’t really paint that ban in the best light
That wasn’t meant to sound mean, just something that popped up in my head because it was about a birthday.
Yeah that doesn’t at all, it definitely does come across as enjoying it and makes his statements less believable.
I don’t know if that’s entirely true for all or even most of the current ones, it certainly isn’t for past lemmy.world admins, who may or may not still be on the team.
Eh, well… I can’t really respond to that statement if I don’t know who you are talking about.
(Opinion bit)
There should definitely be an exception for federated users. @sag@lemm.ee did not sign up to lemmy.world and therefore did not agree to the ToS.
(I am not a lawyer, anyone else can correct the stuff I say below)
Since lw isn’t storing sag’s data (apart from public posts and comments) there shouldn’t be any concerns with child data protection. lemm.ee would be serving them content that under 18s shouldn’t view, not lw (unless they are hosting it, which I don’t think you do?). I may be missing something (again, not a lawyer) but what is the point of this other than being (in my opinion, a bit too) careful with the law?
That is a kind of shitty response from World and seems a little condescending to me, but tone is difficult. You are welcome here and I would rather you stay and interact with the rest of us than leave the fediverse. Your voice matters and I didn’t have the same outlets when I was your age.
@Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com Is it the responsibility of gmail to make sure that people on other mail services don’t break their TOS?
Isn’t that the whole point of email being federated?
It’s always a bit surprising when people reply from Misskey or Mastodon, I feel like I have to answer while they just comment generally
I’m really not sure how the TOS apply given it opens with:
This Terms of Service applies to your access to and active use of https://lemmy.world/, it’s API’s and sub-domain services (ex alt GUIs)(we, us, our the website, Lemmy.World, or LW) as well as all other properties and services associated with Lemmy.World.
Sag wasn’t accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself. This would be like an email provider blocking a particular address from another service because the user of that address doesn’t comply with a part of their TOS.
Sag wasn’t accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself.
He posted on “Fediverse@lemmy.world”
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.
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?
… 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Maybe !fediverse@lemmy.zip could become an alternative
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.
Just to make sure, @Demigodrick@lemmy.zip , would you have instance banned that user in a similar situation?
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
Great, thanks!
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?
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.
Ah, thanks
@flamingos@feddit.uk While the email analogy works well, activityPub is technically an api.
It’s a protocol, which I suppose you could argue is an API though that’d be a very liberal definition of API.
@flamingos@feddit.uk As per the spec:
The ActivityPub protocol is a decentralized social networking protocol based upon the [ActivityStreams] 2.0 data format. It provides a client to server API for creating, updating and deleting content, as well as a federated server to server API for delivering notifications and content.
Bruh
Why we banning kids now?
What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?
😓
What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?
That’s the whole point, they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children. People are going to argue otherwise but as a trans person myself I’ve seen this and you’re not fooling anyone with your lame excuses about protecting kids. People especially those who are vulnerable need support networks, do you know how many trans kids kill themselves because they can’t get the support they need and live with abusive and controlling parents. Don’t tell me it’s to protect kids, I’m not stupid enough to buy that lie and you’re not stupid enough to think I’d buy it.
Children are not fucking chattel and I’m tired of pretending like they are.
It’s weird to confuse responsibility and mentorship with ownership.
It’s weird that you consider actions reminiscent of ownership and control, like trying to keep children away from support groups, or preventing a trans kid from expressing themselves in a way that aligns with their gender identity, responsibility or mentorship. You sound so much like a right wing troll right now, and it’s not funny or amusing.
What, are you going to say that children don’t understand their gender? That they’re confused? That all parents care for their kids and should be the only influence in their lives? It’s certainly sounds like that’s where you’re going right now.
This is the fediverse, they can sign up to any instance that will have them.
That’s the whole point[:] they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children.
I wish I had your mind-reading ability. Without that omniscient edge this looks like the weirdest bit of teen O.D.D today.
Am I supposed to feel insulted? I don’t care what some right wing troll thinks of me. Whether you like it or not, right wing politicians push for these tactics to take support networks away from vulnerable people who they believe to have ownership of.
