!piracy@lemmy.ml has also been blocked from lemmy.world.

edit:

Lemmy.world has released an official response.

    • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good to know just so I know to go to an instance that doesn’t block this community. I don’t blame .world for being careful. This is indeed the Fediverse working as intended.

      • GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that people are more upset that it was done only after a troll complained about it on the support or admin community.

        • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, that was a dumb reason, I agree. But I also think it was inevitable with .world being the biggest instance. They’re the first place in Lemmy any corporation will go to if they wanna sue.

          • GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I also just thought that, given how thoroughly downvoted that post and all its OP’s comments were, it makes the Admins of Lemmy.world look like they’ve actively gone against popular opinion. Psychologically, mobs tend to dislike that appearance.

              • GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Like, I think people are upset about blocking the piracy communities, sure, but I think that the real issue is that it feels like everyone is just vibing, doing their thing on their lemmy instances, then this troll comes in all fake concerned about breaking rules, gets utterly piled on naturally, only for the admins in question to come in and “side” with the “loser” in people’s eyes.

                • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah, I agree with that. It’s not the blocking that’s such an issue, it’s how they came to decide to do it. Definitely wasn’t handled well. I wonder if the (even more) downtime they’ve been having recently is a result of more people being pissed about this move piling on to the DDOS attacks?

          • GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s nothing to sue? They could go after an instance owner, sure, but I’m reasonably sure that there’s still Section 230 safe harbor protections for “service providers”, which to my knowledge could easily be the owner/admin of a fediverse instance. Perhaps it’ll need to be litigated in the courts, which is unfortunate for whoever gets stuck being the trailblazer.

            • thedrizzle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Each instance owner is running these instances themselves, presumably out of the home, for free.

              They could go after an instance owner, sure, but

              There’s no “but”. They could fight a lawsuit, sure, but that’s time consuming and expensive, and why bother? The piracy isn’t coming from their instance, why should they have to fight a lawsuit for it? Piracy has its own instance, nothing has been defederated, they’re just not hosting the content on their server to save themselves the hassle down the road. I can’t imagine they’ll be the only one.

              • GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, but doesn’t it suck that it doesn’t matter what the law says? Do you think it’ll ever change if everyone rolls over and isolates undesirable communities (think beyond piracy to other things like adult content, or content from marginalised groups)

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                They won’t really have to fight a lawsuit because it would just be thrown out if a company tried to file one.

                At worst they’d just get DMCA take down requests.

                • planish@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lawsuits don’t generally just throw themselves out. You have to pay a lawyer to show up and ask the judge to throw out the lawsuit on account of the fact that you don’t host the thing, or whatever the reason is.

                  Judges don’t go out and do research; if one side’s lawyer says Whirlybird runs The Pirate Bay out of their kitchen and the other side’s lawyer isn’t there, then the court is going to proceed as though that is at least plausible.

                  • GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So many laws work like this too, it makes them worthless if personal wealth is required to get them enforced. If Section 230 only exists for the wealthy and corporations, the fediverse isn’t gonna get very far

                  • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You have to pay a lawyer to show up and ask the judge to throw out the lawsuit on account of the fact that you don’t host the thing, or whatever the reason is.

                    You don’t have to pay a lawyer, you can do it yourself.

        • GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I sympathise with instance admins without the ability to risk a court fight, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t those out there who would welcome such a challenge, and I don’t think they should be pressured to cave if they’re inclined not to.

        • Gsus4@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Instance management styles reflect the variety of human personalities and tastes. There will always be a few power trippers, but at least now we can escape. Fuck u/spez@lemmy.world

            • Gsus4@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              True, I agree, it’s not a big deal, just another account, but I can live with it, yes.

              PS: but there is still a case to be made for eclectic instances that host a variety of content. Otherwise, if you pile all piracy with porn, weed and whatever legal gray areas it will be easier to pick them off. Same with politics, debatable science, etc. If you concentrate them too much, federation is moot.