Hello World,
following feedback we have received in the last few days, both from users and moderators, we are making some changes to clarify our ToS.
Before we get to the changes, we want to remind everyone that we are not a (US) free speech instance. We are not located in US, which means different laws apply. As written in our ToS, we’re primarily subject to Dutch, Finnish and German laws. Additionally, it is our discretion to further limit discussion that we don’t consider tolerable. There are plenty other websites out there hosted in US and promoting free speech on their platform. You should be aware that even free speech in US does not cover true threats of violence.
Having said that, we have seen a lot of comments removed referring to our ToS, which were not explicitly intended to be covered by our ToS. After discussion with some of our moderators we have determined there to be both an issue with the ambiguity of our ToS to some extent, but also lack of clarity on what we expect from our moderators.
We want to clarify that, when moderators believe certain parts of our ToS do not appropriately cover a specific situation, they are welcome to bring these issues up with our admin team for review, escalating the issue without taking action themselves when in doubt. We also allow for moderator discretion in a lot of cases, as we generally don’t review each individual report or moderator action unless they’re specifically brought to admin attention. This also means that content that may be permitted by ToS can at the same time be violating community rules and therefore result in moderator action. We have added a new section to our ToS to clarify what we expect from moderators.
We are generally aiming to avoid content organizing, glorifying or suggesting to harm people or animals, but we are limiting the scope of our ToS to build the minimum framework inside which we all can have discussions, leaving a broader area for moderators to decide what is and isn’t allowed in the communities they oversee. We trust the moderators judgement and in cases where we see a gross disagreement between moderatos and admins’ criteria we can have a conversation and reach an agreement, as in many cases the decision is case-specific and context matters.
We have previously asked moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification when this was suggested in context of murder or other violent crimes. Following a discussion in our team we want to clarify that we are no longer requesting moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification in the context of violent crimes when the crime in question already happened. We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence, which is violating our terms of service.
As always, if you stumble across content that appears to be violating our site or community rules, please use Lemmys report functionality. Especially when threads are very active, moderators will not be able to go through every single comment for review. Reporting content and providing accurate reasons for reports will help moderators deal with problematic content in a reasonable amount of time.
kinda defeating yout own point here:
the guy made the concious decision to ruin strangers lives for nothing but his personal greed every single day.
that was HIS choice, HIS action, HIS decision.
well…actions tend to have consequences.
this was a direct consequence of actions the CEO willingly made, repeatedly.
nobody forced him to. nobody compelled him to.
so yeah, he DID choose exactly this, no question about it.
the hypothetical voter in your example indirectly chooses his judgement, this CEO chose directly, all by himself.
so as you can see: the CEO very much DID vote for his fate. he voted every single day working for UHC.
your comment is the absolutely highest form of hypocrisy.
And you should have voted against privatized healthcare like 16 years ago and every time since, but the majority keeps choosing self harm and anybody loyal to the country has to deal with it.
There is no hipocrisy here. I think people who choose to be harmed have to deal with it, that people don’t get to kill outside of the confines of the law.
I believe Democracy is the best system for mankind, through and through, with all of its flaws.
of course there’s hypocrisy here:
you are treating the choices of the two people in question as equal. they are not.
the CEO was in a position of power, abused that power, and suffered the consequences. that is justice fulfilled. not the preferred kind, but still justice.
apart from that, the democratic process spectacularly failed, on this exact topic: obama DID try to enact healthcare reform, but was blocked at every step.
if voting does absolutely nothing, you’re not leaving people a whole lot of options.
the justice system does nothing to help, the voting process has failed to help…what is then left?
this isn’t some horrific, abstract, morally ambigous consequence of a cascade of nebulous events.
there is a very clear cause and effect.
push a boulder off a hilltop; it will roll downhill.
leave a person no other option, but violence; it will end in violence.
it’s a strictly logical consequence.
there is no moral ambiguity here at all. it was a clearly warranted action, with known causes.
cause and effect is a matter of physics, not philosophy.
if you want to blame anyone, blame the republicans: they are the guilty ones here. they are directly responsible for the circumstances that allowed this situation to happen in the first place.
yes, it’s not an ideal outcome.
but it was inevitable, sooner or later. and it’s frankly amazing it hasn’t happened MUCH sooner, and MUCH more often.
this wasn’t a “flaw” in the “democratic” system of the U.S. this is a consequence of the oligarchy working as intended. the intent just happens to be self-destructive in this case.
what this CEO did, was the equivalent of smoking at a gas station; are you really surprised he got blown to bits?
i guess it really comes down to: Fuck Around; Find Out.
well…he did find out, didn’t he?
(and don’t assume i’m a U.S. citizen. it doesn’t matter, and i’m not.)
You don’t get to fulfill justice on your own. Because somebody else is then emboldened to fulfill their justice on you. Suddenly communities decide to fulfill justice against groups of people they don’t like: smaller groups of people of different ancestry. Maybe they start putting them in chains and forcing them to work, too.
Thats not Justice. It’s lawless anarchy of the worst kind.
mother of slippery slope…
everything you’ve said so far takes place in some fantasy world that exists only within your own imagination.
the law failed. the democratic process failed.
your argument boils down to: “please let’s just give the tyrants everything they want from us! it’s the law!”
seriously, is this your first day on earth?
do you simply lack any and all perspective?
and to top it all off: the sheer disregard you show for the countless lives this CEO cut short is frankly breathtaking.
you claim to care for all human life and think everyone deserves a fair trial. that’s well amd good…how could that possibly have ever happened under the current state of affairs in the u.s.? when HAS it ever happened? what makes you think it possibly could?
this was the only way that murderer would ever face justice, and deep down you know that.
Dude accuses the anti-random-street-shootings guy of slippery slopes.
only: it was NOT random.
that’s the part you refuse to acknowledge.
You haven’t got a fucking clue what you’re talking about. What happened 16 years ago? Obama got elected and brought us a Republican healthcare plan designed by the heritage foundation. Joe Lieberman, a democrat voted against single payer. And if it weren’t him it would of been another democrat spoiler to vote against anything remotely good for the general public. And obamacare is awful, we exist under it currently. Typical to liberalism there was no structural change, it was just a generous handout to insurance companies and a little slap on the wrist that they have to insure everyone. does that mean provide healthcare? NO. it meant rob people with insane premiums and then deny and delay care. 33% of UHC claims got denied. One of their Medicare (dis)advantage plans denied 90% of claims via AI that they knew was faulty.
Fuck these people they deserve death.
We don’t have a democratic republic. We have a house of cards that’s falling fast.
EDIT FOR THE DUMB KOOL AID DRINKING FUCKING LIBERAL CLOWNS WHO VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO BECAUSE THEYRE TOO STUPID TO SEE THE SYSTEM IS WORKING EXACTLY AS DESIGNED:
The bill was originally a single payer system but couldn’t get through the senate without more votes.
Because of DEMOCRAT Joe Lieberman.
Joe Leiberman died at 82 in 2013 so it sounds like your worries are behind you. Every single republican also voted no before and after the changes.
And single payer died with him. And the next time it comes up there will conveniently be another democrat to act as the fall guy and tank the legislation. Always.
You dumb liberals don’t understand that the system is working exactly as intended. there will be no change, just a carrot dangled in front of you clowns for decades.
Downvote me all you want you stupid fucking brainwashed liberals.
Lmao, Single Payer died with Democrats and Independents never getting 60 votes again, because people are stupid enough to vote against them.
Go ahead and rewrite history. Fucking libs.
https://publicintegrity.org/health/elimination-of-public-option-threw-consumers-to-the-insurance-wolves/
LIBERALS CAN FUCK RIGHT OFF
Blaming working class people deprived of Healthcare for their own deaths is revolting.
You say that as if Trump whose platform involves pure privatization of healthcare didn’t win the vast majority of low education voters.
This was a political issue. Single Payer was on the ballot and couldn’t pass Senate under Obama, and purely because of that people like the UHC CEO exist at all.