this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
13 points (93.3% liked)

Fediverse

385 readers
23 users here now

Federated universe is a decentralized, federated social media network that is interoperable with each other by using ActivityPub protocol.

Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
3. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
4. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
5. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
6. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Interesting links

Icon by Eukombos (CC0)

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
BrikoX@lemmy.zip
13
If there is any lawyer / legal expert in the room, are remote users subject to an instance Terms of Service? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/fediverse@lemmy.zip
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

See this post for context: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39648805

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Demigodrick@lemmy.zip 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I'll just pop a slightly shortened version of the discussion from the other thread, and im happy to be told I'm wrong, assuming there's evidence of that.

A terms of service is legal agreement between two parties, the server and the user in this case. The user must (in most cases) explicitly agree to that agreement for it to be binding. A ToS can suggest implicit binding, but that's unlikely to be legally "fair". But that's irrelevant in this case as the ToS for lemmy.world did not have that in. Signing up to the server for lemmy.world requires stating agreement of this ToS.

A remote user has no sight of this agreement - it's not presented to them, and they have not accepted it. There is every chance they are totally unaware it even exists. Therefore they cannot be bound by that ToS in the same way you can't be bound to a legal contract you haven't seen or signed or agreed to. The only ToS that user has seen is their local instance ToS, assuming one exists.

So for the lemmy.world admin to ban a remote user because something about the remote user's account violates the lemmy.world ToS is unfair - that remote user is not bound by the lemmy.world ToS as they haven't got any legal agreement with lemmy.world.

If the precedent set was that the remote user is liable under lemmy.worlds ToS, then every single user would suddenly be liable under every single federated servers ToS and have a legal arrangement with every server.

My annoyance with the situation is the lemmy.world admins brandishing their ToS in this way. They can ban someone for any reason if they want, its their server, but to claim a ToS violation is, imo, absolutely not right as the ToS does not apply to remote users.

/rant

Edit: I think I find the argument that lemmy.world don't want to be in legal trouble also frustrating. It's disingenuous. Lemm.ee bears the legal responsibility for the user, none of that is passed on to lemmy.world. If the user was to see NSFW content on lemmy.world - ah, but they haven't. They've seen the content on lemm.ee. sure, it might be a lemmy.world community, but that doesn't matter, because that content the user is seeing is via lemm.ee, on a copy of a community, and so the lemm.ee ToS applies and has nothing to do with lemmy.world.

They've just decided to ban someone for being under 18 even though it doesn't affect them in the slightest.

Edit 2: sorry, I didn't even answer the question. IANAL but no, you can't be forced to accept a legal contract you've not seen and so they don't apply to remote instances.

[–] irelephant@calckey.world 1 points 23 hours ago

@Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com tagging @neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

A noncommercial website can surely exclude whoever they want. A list of reasons they'll do it is more of a courtesy.

What's the alternative, here? That neo-Nazis on another instance can't be told to get bent, if their own instance is cool with them?

[–] Palladiumasteroid@piefed.social 1 points 12 hours ago

Are you comparing one of the worst moderated Lemmy instance being shitty towards a kid with blocking/defederating from neo-nazis? Are you for real?

[–] Demigodrick@lemmy.zip 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Absolutely they can exclude anyone they want to (as long as it's not because of discrimination as that opens a whole other legal field) but the point is that they claimed the user broke their ToS and therefore that's why they were banned. But a ToS doesn't apply to remote users (in my opinion, im not a lawyer etc etc). They could have literally said for any other reason they wanted, or not even given a reason, but they specifically claimed ToS which is what we're trying to understand here.

If lemmy.worlds ToS applies to remote users, then every single fedi servers ToS apply to every single person in the fediverse.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -2 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

... yes, in fact, that's exactly how the fediverse works. Other instances can and will ban you, from their service, according to their terms.

Y'all are getting caught up on how contract-shaped these tend to be. But a heads-up about what shit they'll ban you for, on these noncommercial pseudonymous forums, is never going to see the inside of a courtroom. It's just a formality. The stakes are microscopic. Your actual agreement is not required, because they'll just do what they want.

Fortunately, the whole point of the fediverse is - that power is limited to their instance. One site holding every last user accountable for e.g. their opinion of pineapple on pizza can only result in some weird modlog messages. lemmy.pineapplefucker.golf can't stop you from posting on your own instance. Or anyone else's. So if .world wants to pretend there are no teenagers on the internet, oh well.

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago

Pseudo-legaleese FUD is not necessarily intended to be used in court (where commonly it would not have a chance).

This is another instance of .world trying to deflect critisism for their choices by invoking "the law". Last time they claimed to have consulted a lawyer.

The problem is not that they can actually "enforce their tos" nor that they can ban you. Its that they try to steer Lemmy as a platform to their preferred directio, this time apparently against teen users, using false pretenses.

[–] Palladiumasteroid@piefed.social 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

That's in fact not how the Fediverse work. Remote users aren't subjected to other instances' Tos, that would be a legal nightmare. You're only subjected to the TOS of the server that host your account.

The kid didn't break .world TOS because he didn't join the server as a minor nor did he pretend to be an adult in order to join.

.world admins broke it the moment they didn't use the tools available to limit and cut federation accordingly with servers that allow minors in or that otherwise allow content agains their TOS.

If .world wants to pretend teens don't access the internet is their responsibility to blacklist and whitelist accordingly in order to defederate from intences that allow teenagers to join.

It's not the job of common user, especially not of remote users, to do the job of moderating a server, to decide which servers federates with. No matter if rule three before the no minors thing basically says "we won't do our job, you are on you your own", that would still only apply to direct users, accounts hosted on the server and not to remote users.

Adding to all that, there's no reason to block minors from accessing the site other than hatred towards teenagers; content that could be dangerous for them is also against . world TOS.

If that type of content in practice is allowed on the server, once again, the admins aren't doing their job and are the first ones not upholding their own TOS

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Garbage previously addressed.

A TOS is not some serious contract. It's a notice. 'By using this site, you agree to...' and any site has carte blanche to put whatever they want, to decide they don't want you using that site. To whatever extent you're 'using' LW by being on a federated instance, LW has rescinded that, for this user. Whoop de shit. His local account is fine, other instances don't care.

You will inevitably catch hands from one cagey instance or other for completely stupid reasons. Or at least from crank moderators, drunk off the tiniest mote of power. That's all that's happening here.

Citing the TOS linked at the bottom instead of the rules in the sidebar makes no difference.

[–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

That neo-Nazis on another instance can’t be told to get bent, if their own instance is cool with them?

The context is completely different here, see the OP

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago

I'm aware of the context.