Earlier, after review, we blocked and removed several communities that were providing assistance to access copyrighted/pirated material, which is currently not allowed per Rule #1 of our Code of Conduct. The communities that were removed due to this decision were:

We took this action to protect lemmy.world, lemmy.world’s users, and lemmy.world staff as the material posted in those communities could be problematic for us, because of potential legal issues around copyrighted material and services that provide access to or assistance in obtaining it.

This decision is about liability and does not mean we are otherwise hostile to any of these communities or their users. As the Lemmyverse grows and instances get big, precautions may happen. We will keep monitoring the situation closely, and if in the future we deem it safe, we would gladly reallow these communities.

The discussions that have happened in various threads on Lemmy make it very clear that removing the communites before we announced our intent to remove them is not the level of transparency the community expects, and that as stewards of this community we need to be extremely transparent before we do this again in the future as well as make sure that we get feedback around what the planned changes are, because lemmy.world is yours as much as it is ours.

    • @GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
      1•8 months ago

      Regarding your first point, there is no discussion, they can do whatever they want, they are omnipotent on that.

      Regarding your second, that’s absolutely fair game.

      • @michaelmrose@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1•8 months ago

        Once you start hosting an instance that has open registration, it’s not just “their house” anymore. They are providing a service to people. They do so willingly. Arbitrairly blocking instances because you don’t know how something works and don’t bother to check it isn’t the way to host a free and open instance.

        You seem to be uniquely bad at reading so this is comment is the start of this subthread you originally replied to. Nobody ever suggested they COULDN’T implement any rule they please. It was never a point anyone brought up for you to be refuting. It is literally you dishonestly trying to steer the discussion away from the actual point of discussing SHOULD they.

        • @GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
          1•8 months ago

          No, I discussed a facet of the larger concept, which requires basic critical thinking to acknowledge.

          I am not obligated to address all features of the topic, and that is not dishonest.

          Edit I specifically refuted the topic of “once you host, it’s not your house”. Bullshit. It’s 100% their house and that’s the end of the line.