These rules just make lemmy.world to be a poor man’s substitute to reddit, and seems to go against what the fediverse was all about.
First of all, permanent bans. These are great when you deal with people who are never going to change and who are clearly breaking the ToS. The problem is, people change, and admin moderation never is 100% right because no one is 100% right all the time, especially when having to deal with a massive scale of users. Considering how integral social networks are to people’s lives, and that some people are literally children who are growing up, we really should be given a remediational system with them rather than simply “instaban” if this is supposed to be a better social network than the commercial fast buck alternatives.
Second, if you permanently ban users, you run into the same problems as reddit. What happens to all of their previous comments? Do you clear them out from the system even though they had nothing to do with the ban? Do you give users the option to delete it? Do you keep in on the platform without their consent? Do you allow banned users the possibility to export their comment onto other fediverse hosts who might not have the same opinion in regards to a ban as you? How are you complying with the GDPR?
Third, if you try to suggest that a banned user can’t come back and use your platform, what about when they comment from another lemmy host account? Are you going to break the fediverse to enforce bans, or is it local account based only? Are you going to ban lemmy hosts if they refuse to permaban the same people you pemaban?
Fourth, this sort of seems like a three strike system. So, like a “look, I got two strikes way back and suddenly now twenty years after I get a strike, and because of those two, I get banned”.
Overall, it’s very, very vague. Attacking and harrassing groups sounds pretty clear, until you consider how easily it could be applied to mere criticism about a group someone doesn’t like. “participation in individual communities will only be acceptable on the condition that you abide by their rules” seems pretty clear, except when you consider communities whose moderators remove comments under false premises of rule breaking without any explanation. “You waive Lemmy.World … from any claims resulting from any action taken by Lemmy.World, and any of the foregoing parties relating to any investigations by either us or by law enforcement authorities.” - I see many lawyers try to sneak this one, but there are very few courts that wouldn’t allow me to file a claim even with this under a Terms of Service I haven’t even had to explicitly indicate I agree with if, say, lemmy.world decided to violate my GDPR protections because censors in China didn’t like a comment I made about Tiananmen Square, requested my personal private data lemmy.world has on me, and they decided to give it to them.
Seems like you can replace anti-Semites with any populist reactionary in this quote. But in terms of an argument, I have seen far too many just end up with replies that ignore most of it and just stick to whatever crumbs they still see as an opening, specially when they know they can intimidate and disconcert by number.
Very few ever “fall silently”, as this quote portrays, it is either a forced silence by the conversation being closed by moderators who are either complicit or getting bombarded with intimidation and alarmism themselves, or by branching out into gaslighting far outside of the discussion. Getting the last word is worth shit, much like silence itself. But with so many thinking silence indicates rightness, is it a wonder that so much of the word is addicted to the most permanent form of silence, death? History is written by the victors, upon the body of corpses.
I can tell you this: Trump isn’t the sort who will ever fall silent.