• PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

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

    He posted on “Fediverse@lemmy.world”

    • flamingos-cant (hopepunk arc)@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months 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
        1
        ·
        8 months 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?

        • flamingos-cant (hopepunk arc)@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months 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
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months 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?

        • Demigodrick@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months 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
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months 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
              1
              ·
              8 months 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
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months 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.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months 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
            1
            ·
            8 months 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
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months 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
                1
                ·
                8 months 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.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months 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
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months 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.

                • Microw@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months 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.