A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
This is just plain stupid, with that logic anything taken out of context, such as quoting a politician, citing part of a paper would be illegal.
Is it morally ok that this dude pulled out of sex scenes from movies ? To each their own. But the actors willingly filmed these scenes and they were available for everyone watching the movie.
anything taken out of context, such as quoting a politician,
Perhaps the goal?
Wait untill they find out what AI does with their material...
Soon they going after ppl for uploading porn then? Cause that's like 98% of the internet as Tumblr learned.
Surely we can all agree that this is BS right?
Absolutely. Moral rights? Rights of respect? This is taking a giant leap down a very slippery slope. I am sure whoever came up with this had their heart in the right place. Doesn't mean this doesn't lead somewhere awful.
Yeah; I mean, if this was any other content from the same shows/movies it'd be a non-issue covered under Fair Use.
I can understand being upset about entirely new content, AI deepfakes for example; but this content was created and distributed to the public, intentionally, with the consent of the individuals that are filmed within it. It's just been transformed into a different format; arguably, in a creative and educational manner. (the same way something like a 'Family Guy funny moments' compilation is)
If you didn't want people looking at your nude body, why did you perform nude scenes in front of a camera, knowing it'd be distributed to the public...
Apparently Denmark disagrees with you.
I tell you, every piece of news I hear about Denmark for the last couple years has been really shitty. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Leaning a little too far into protecting people from harassment is rotten?
Yeah, I mean, the law is a bit weird, seems far too broad, but I'm not from Denmark, so maybe it's a cultural difference. Regardless, there was a law on the books, the mod violated it, and is being punished in accordance with it.
He was also charged with sharing over 25 terabytes of pirated content, using a private torrent tracker called Superbits.org, TorrentFreak noted.
There's also this bit... That's a bit weirdly worded, though. Did he share 25 TB of unique content, or did he upload 25 TB in total? Big difference there.
I think the only thing he should be… possibly… nailed for is copyright violation.
Why didn't they go after Reddit? He's just a street corner drug dealer, not the gang leader.
Fuck reddit but going after (moderated) websites for user uploaded content isn't a great path. In this case, maybe they could go after reddit though if they could prove reddit intentionally allowed the content though
They're responsible for what gets posted. They're now a billion dollar company and probably have teams of lawyers. They're also letting the user that gives them free content to make money of of, take the hit when it's deemed illegal.
Whether they are responsible for what gets posted is exactly the discussion point. There are different ideas on this. Different countries and different people have different opinions on this point.
Generally, website are not really in favor of this idea - and it's not only big tech I'm talking about.
My personal opinion is I don't really like this idea. Having the websites responsible of what gets posted means the websites necessarily have to do some censoring. I'm not necessarily against censoring, but I don't like the idea it is a large private company deciding what to censor. I'd much rather have the government decide and impose the ban on companies.
Moreover, forcing websites to censor things leads to a very centralised internet. The random guy setting up a forum can not afford to patrol that well how website, while big companies indeed can have teams of people doing just that.
My understanding is that this is partly why the DMCA works the way it does. If the site takes content down then they're protected from claims made by the copyright holder. It's a way to acknowledge "hey, you're sort of responsible for what gets put up, but we know mistakes happen." (Though, more often than not, it's just used as a way to silence people. Not saying DMCA is perfect or good.)
I don't think it's necessarily true that it's so overly onerous that it must lead to centralization. I'm part of staff on a medium-sized Discord server and we have more than enough coverage to handle objectionable content. As another example, Fediverse instances here have proactively established rules and norms for NSFW content that ensures the communities keep running, and most are still going a few years later after the Reddit exodus exploded their populations.
It absolutely does make scaling up more expensive, but I've gone from a fairly libertarian stance on this to now asserting proper community moderation has become part of the social responsibility corps have now when making these spaces grow to have massive reach. And yes, I don't think big corps do enough on this topic, and it's another inequity because it's really starting to look like new organizations are going to have to be more responsible for what content they allow. But I'm all for coming down hard on the big corps. Everyone got by just fine in the 90's and 2000's when they had much, much larger customer support/moderator staffs. "It's too expensive" is the same garbage excuse used for other forms of enshittification today while these platforms make money hand over fist.
Do you understand that Discord is a massively centralised web app?
In terms of content moderation? Not in the least. Discord is extremely laissez-faire about it. They intervene when compelled to by law enforcement. I can't speak to the large server experience, but we've run our server for nearly six years and not a single member of staff has ever spoken with anyone at Discord. Every single one of the moderation tools we use are third party.
As a practical matter, Discord provides the communication infrastructure for us and that's literally it. Irrelevant to the topic at hand. We could pack up and move it all to Matrix tomorrow and our content moderation experience would be just as centralized (that is to say, it would not be).
You don't understand the concepts of liability or of server-side administration and monitoring, which are two very diverse areas to speak so confidently incorrectly about
So you're saying that if a mod posted child porn, that the website should leave it up and let the chips fall where they may? That the website isn't responsible if it stays up?
What I am saying is that it should not be up to a website company to decide whether something is legal or not. In all other businesses this has always been related to a judge deciding whether something was legal or not. A newspaper is something related, in which case the editor has some responsibility if he lets something clearly illegal slip, however the responsibility falls on the journalist and not on the newspaper itself.
Frankly, I do not want social media - which is currently the main source of information for many and likely most people - to be justified in deciding what should be allowed and what should not. If someone uses such platforms to do something illegal, there are indeed legal methodologies to deal with that.
Why do I feel like Denmark is speed running some Phillip K. Dick-esque dystopia where the elite live in one realm and the plebs live another ultra moralistic surveilled realm
It's been like that forever.
Denmark is a Nepocracy, if you're not part of the elite group, you're gonna have a bad time.
Dane here. I don't live in the elite group, nor do I feel like I have a bad time.
Denmark is not perfect, and there is probably a fair share of bad politics. But I am so happy to live here compared to most other countries in the world.
I know that the Danes don't think elite corruption is widespread in their country, and that's fertile ground for corruption, since there's no big pressure for more scrutiny. It's no coincidence that you had the biggest corruption scandal in Europe in recent years.
What is your sample size? Which places have you inhabited for more than 3 months? (Saw at least 2 seasons?)
Sampled Odense and suburbs to Odense. So not much and no rural areas.
Finally someone else sees it too.
The groups argued that KlammereFyr removed the artistic context and immorally sexualized actors, sometimes by cropping scenes or “changing the lighting to accentuate certain features,” TorrentFreak reported.
To groups, it seemed clear that KlammereFyr was violating a rarely tested part of copyright law that protects artists’ “integrity” by shielding their “moral rights.”
(...)
Following his confession, the Court of Frederiksberg convicted the Redditor, sentencing him to a seven-month conditional prison sentence, followed by 120 hours of community service. Next, the Reddit mod will face a separate civil lawsuit to determine damages, which could be substantial. Rightsholders are seeking between $2,300–$4,600 per nude clip, TorrentFreak reported, putting the maximum possible award above $1.5 million.