Lemmy.world removes its rules against discrimination

5.0.1: Before using the website, remember you will be interacting with actual, real people and communities. Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other groups of people. Every one of our users has a right to browse and interact with the website and all of its contents free of treatment such as harassment, bullying, violation of privacy or threats of violence.
- Yes but what about jewish black lesbians? They are cool to harass right? It's not literally explained in the document so it must be!
  Edit: /s for @BolexForSoup@kbin.social
  
  HEAR HERE! (I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE TO USE WHEN SHOUTING THIS EXPRESSION IN SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING)
  
  Have never read a discrimination clause before? You don’t have to list literally ever combination. This is ignorant at its most charitable interpretation.
  See? This is the shit I’m talking about. People here going “it doesn’t matter” yet here you are showing us exactly why it matters.
- Not a single mention of discrimination because it doesn’t say anything about religion/race/gender/etc. It needs to specify this to be a rule about discrimination. Even the US federal government - which is the bare minimum - has this spelled out in employment laws and other areas.
  
  While I don't think it would be unwarranted, it's also not specifically necessary. They can interpret that line to mean anything they want. It's a volunteer run, privately hosted reddit clone. It doesn't need to be as intricate as US law (which I not sure why that's "baseline" for anything).

I'm pretty sure the ToS only exists for legal reasons, don't make a big deal out of this. It doesn't mean the admins won't ban people for discrimination. Nothing suggests their stance has changed.
- It's always the same trolls. Who would read the ToS and say "ok guess racism is back on the table".
- Then why the change?
  
  Nothing was changed, it's a new document.
- If it’s not a big deal then it shouldn’t be too hard to mention you can’t discriminate against someone’s religion/race/gender/etc.
  These things are a big enough deal they need to be removed but suddenly “it’s not a big deal” when people want them back.
  
  A) They weren't removed, this is a new document
  B) As other comments mention, discrimination and harassment is covered in section 5
  C) Consider messaging the admins about it rather than push the alert button and causing needless drama
- How would a user of an internet forum exhibit discrimination?

Rule 5 covers discrimination.

Here's a link to the terms of service.
Frankly it sounds a lot like pseudo-legalese. IMO the worst of both legalese (that could shield the entity legally) and writing clearly (that could inform users). However it doesn't imply that discrimination is allowed here, and 5.0.1 ("Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other groups of people.") already arguably protects people against discrimination.
- It’s a hell of a lot clearer too. “Discriminate” is more vague than “attack”.

What would "discrimination" look like in a reddit-like link sharing service?
I'm not even sure what that word would imply in a discussion forum. It usually applies to things like wages, job opportnities, access, etc.
- California, actually. Although that's probably worse.
  I would proudly stink of back-bacon and maple syrup, if given the opportunity.

Was there any discussion about this change? Or is this it.
- I can't see any history discussing the change before today, but the posts from before today also seem to be more inclusivity-minded than this one. Maybe it's just a huge oversight and they forgor. But it's definitely not a nice look. The new rules also say you're not allowed to report content for things that aren't a violation of the terms of service. So if you report a content for being racist, that's against the rules.
  
  So if you report a content for being racist, that’s against the rules.
  If that is what you make of it than you're either playing dumb or you know, not pretending

oh s**t no more lemmy.world?

Aren't you just woke?

Doesn't discrimination need to be allowed so the site can ban people for things without breaking their own rules?
Banning in one way or annother is kind of the definition of discrimination.
- Doesn’t discrimination need to be allowed so the site can ban people for things without breaking their own rules? // Banning in one way or annother is kind of the definition of discrimination.
  No. It's basically two different meanings associated with the same word:
  "to discriminate" as "to sort out", "to make a distinction" - necessary to ban users
  "to discriminate" as "to treat users differently based on social or individual prejudice" - what people shouldn't be doing
  The first meaning is mostly used formally. The second one is kind of "default" when people talk about discrimination.
- Are you the same people that say that by banning fascists you're also becoming fascist?
  
  Hey! Fascists are more than just banning things, you know.