New Terms of Use rolling out ~Tues/Wed this week

[alasdairm]

hey @mal3volent ,

i moved your question here as i think it's a more appropriate home for it.

good question.

you're correct that "likely to offend" is subjective. most , if not all language, in community governance documents is, by necessity, subjective. the alternative is an exhaustive list of prohibited content that will always have gaps and will always be gamed. vagueness isn't a loophole here. it's a deliberate feature of any workable moderation framework.

i think you understand this as well as any of us.

as for your specific question - offensive to whom? the answer is: to bluelight's administration, exercising reasonable judgment in context. this has always been the position. the original blua explicitly reserved to bluelight the right to edit, delete or restore content "as it sees fit." the new terms state the same thing more formally: we may remove content "in our sole discretion... at any time and for any reason."

so yes, to put it plainly, we are the arbiters. we always have been. the new terms don't represent some power grab. they're a clearer articulation of an authority that has existed since the site's inception.

you know that doesn't mean decisions are arbitrary or capricious. in practice, moderation decisions are made by experienced staff using community context and established norms. but the ultimate authority rests with the administration, as it does on every private platform. bluelight is not a public utility or a government institution it has no obligation to apply a "reasonable objective third party" standard unless it chooses to.

thanks.

alasdair

 

[ions]

so is it like termination of service?

 

[alasdairm]

is what like termination of service?

alasdair

 

[ions]

 

[alasdairm]

dictionary.com: term

but you already know this.

alasdair

 

[mal3volent]

the new terms don't represent some power grab

I never said they did. Unless I'm mistaken, "likely to offend" is new language. If it's not, I do not recall it being there before.

The prior words, ie, degrades, harasses, etc at least implies some semblance of harmful intent. Something that is offensive, no, something that could be interpreted as "likely" to offend -- even if no one actually was, seems impossible to define.

In my mind, a rule that is literally impossible to follow in good faith is probably a bad rule.

as for your specific question - offensive to whom? the answer is: to bluelight's administration

we are the arbiters. we always have been

but the ultimate authority rests with the administration

Well, that may be how it is now, but that certainly is not how it "always" has been. My approach was always to act on clearly defined terms, explicit and established guidelines, long standing precedent, etc. Never once did we as admin see ourselves as the ultimate arbiters of anything, unless it was some really special circumstance. What I personally found offensive was actually kind of irrelevant most of the time. I think a better word would be stewards or facilitators, acting as arbiters only when all other methods have been exhausted.

I don't recall either any mention of the escalating points system in the new terms. As long as the forum remains committed to that framework I think the worst outcomes might be avoided but there seems to be a more draconian tone in the new terms, in my opinion.

 

[alasdairm]

i think, in practice, little will change in the day to day.

thanks mal. appreciate the comments.

alasdair

 

[Tronica]

Thanks for engaging with the terms.

The BLUA bit, section 25 in the new terms, remains the same as before, so, yes, no substantive change there.

If you go to bluelight now without logging in, you'll see the terms and need to agree to continue.

The terms roll out for registered users will be over the next 24 hours.

If any technical issues, please do let us know so we can resolve!

 

[Tronica]

I never said they did. Unless I'm mistaken, "likely to offend" is new language. If it's not, I do not recall it being there before.

The prior words, ie, degrades, harasses, etc at least implies some semblance of harmful intent. Something that is offensive, no, something that could be interpreted as "likely" to offend -- even if no one actually was, seems impossible to define.

In my mind, a rule that is literally impossible to follow in good faith is probably a bad rule.





Well, that may be how it is now, but that certainly is not how it "always" has been. My approach was always to act on clearly defined terms, explicit and established guidelines, long standing precedent, etc. Never once did we as admin see ourselves as the ultimate arbiters of anything, unless it was some really special circumstance. What I personally found offensive was actually kind of irrelevant most of the time. I think a better word would be stewards or facilitators, acting as arbiters only when all other methods have been exhausted.

I don't recall either any mention of the escalating points system in the new terms. As long as the forum remains committed to that framework I think the worst outcomes might be avoided but there seems to be a more draconian tone in the new terms, in my opinion.

re draconian tone, this may just be the result of engaging two different sets of lawyers trying to address multiple risks legally.

But as ali says, no real change to registered users.

What is a substantive change is that guests need to agree, and we've never had an active agreement required by guests of the site. This is because we could see that many of the risks to us as an org originate from people viewing the site, not just registered posters.

 

[ions]

I think y'all are p'noid.

 

[Tronica]

I mean, it's worth being a bit paranoid when it comes to data and terms of use. As in, good idea to actually read it.

But we are still the same folks and don't wish to scare anyone away or make it less safe - we are trying to protect the site from legal attack from different angles. While we won't go into it publicly, we have been the receiver of legal threats of late, which made shit real for us. So, it matters, is all I will say, and this will mean we have greater protection from malicious actors.

 

[puke]

I look at this as a good thing especially when it comes to guests. Wish they enforced tos on X, not cuz the racism etc hurts my soul or anything but I don't need to scroll through a bunch of sh to get to a comment I wanna read.

 

[placebonaut]

Alternatively, being volunteers is no valid excuse for moderators to fall into a familiar slide of the Peter Principle. Authority without structure inevitably drifts, the responsibility that comes with power requires safeguards, and that's why time-limited mandates would make a lot of sense. 1 year is more than enough for the staff to evaluate true merit rather than relying on a culture of badges. Overall rotations would prevent stagnation, reduce personal bias, and ensure a high standard of community service.

I think you're glossing over the issues that the staff have recruiting mods right now

it's a labor of love, done without reward, they're human, and ultimately here because they are 1 of us, i.e. have the same issues/thoughts/opinions/differences of opinions with others

 

[asvarohn]

1. is defamatory, deceptive, fraudulent, tortious, inaccurate, abusive, hateful, menacing, scandalous, inflammatory or threatening;
2. victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or any other reason;
3. is spam or spam-like;
4. is likely to offend;
5. contains violent, abusive, pornographic or sexually-explicit material;
6. contains the confidential information of others or otherwise invasive of another’s privacy;
7. violates the rules of the specific sub-forum or forum on which it is posted; or
8. encourages harm.

all of this is very open to interpretation and depends very much on the individual posting and the one reading.
i think some users here are spammers, even though nobody really acts on it.
there has been some very radical posts in some discussions by several users sharing the same opinion, posted back to back in a way that seems very threatening and even triggering. but that was okay, apparently because nothing *in* those posts contained explicit language.
so where is the line here?

 

[asvarohn]

offensive to whom? the answer is: to bluelight's administration,

that's interesting.
so it's now about users and their wellbeing.
EDIT:
so it's *not* about users and their well being, but about what fits bluelight's administration's perspective

 

[placebonaut]

legal jargon is 1 thing (ass covering for a charity), enforcement and interpretation by mods is another (reality of what we see)....

 

[alasdairm]

i have deleted and/or edited a handful of off-topic posts. please try to keep this on topic. thanks.

alasdair

 

[asvarohn]

it's a labor of love, done without reward, they're human, and ultimately here because they are 1 of us, i.e. have the same issues/thoughts/opinions/differences of opinions with others

agree to the first part.
but i'm not so sure about what comes after reward.
this forum isn't something that can be considered a place for people to just be and share anymore. it's an organization with a fixed agenda and rules and goals and the bureaucracy that comes with being an organization. and that's where the human factor and the equality dies sooner or later.
i actually wondered about point 43. sorry, 27 F

 

[asvarohn]

1 other thing worth highlighting is how the police can access info.

I think this is perfectly fair and reasonable, but it requires users to be aware of it and act accordingly - you need basic OPEC people!

@Tronica please correct me if I'm wrong below

Bluelight.org may comply with lawful requests from police or government authorities in certain circumstances.


The relevant points are:

• Court orders or legal requirements: Bluelight says it may provide stored information about users if it receives a properly authorized request, such as a court order or another legally valid demand from law enforcement or regulatory authorities.
• Emergency situations: Bluelight’s privacy section says it may disclose information if it believes there is an emergency and disclosure is needed to protect you or another person.
• Selective monitoring in certain cases: Bluelight reserves the right to perform selective electronic monitoring of traffic through its systems if it suspects policy violations or if required by a court order or law.

What this means in practice:

• Bluelight is not promising to ignore police requests; it states that it will comply with legally valid requests.
• A police officer simply asking for information would generally not be the same as a legally binding request (such as a court order or other lawful process), although the exact requirements depend on the jurisdiction and the type of information requested.
• Bluelight does not guarantee anonymity and users should not assume forum posts or account information cannot be linked to them.
• Bluelight also states that user-generated content is not necessarily private or confidential, and you should avoid posting information you would not want disclosed.

The relevant clauses are mainly:

• Clause 28: Bluelight may provide stored information to law enforcement or authorities when it receives a properly authorized request.
• Clause 29: Bluelight may disclose information when required by law or in an emergency.
• Clause 28/24: Bluelight may monitor activity in cases of suspected policy violations or legal requirements.

So the short version: Bluelight generally protects user information under its privacy practices, but it reserves the right—and says it may be legally required—to hand over information when authorities follow the proper legal process or when safety/legal obligations require disclosure.

are you are lawyer or something?
i would really like to have the time to go through your summary and check if what it says really represents what the new agreement says.
i don't and i don't even care very much, just wondered how many people might use your version as the real thing instead of actually reading the full agreement.

 

[placebonaut]

I don't want to come across as being someone who is defending "the man" and these T&Cs, but I do think it's very important to be transparent and have an open and honest discussion about things, best to also made that evidence based and independently verifiable.

I put some effort in to look at the T&Cs for myself and shared what I found as a way to help others also understand, not to reinforce what we're being spoonfed.

I would be 1st in line call out BS if I didn't agree with things or thought they were questionable.

Also worth pointing out that the stakes here are about the provision of a global drug harm reduction resource that allows users to get honest real advice from people who are struggling with drug use, the T&Cs for me are there to help protect that resource from being fucked over by the law, politicians, and other twats that would otherwise potentially use any excuse to close down a valuable resource if people take the piss and abuse the site.

but i'm not so sure about what comes after reward.

you're not sure they're human? or that they have some big issues with drug use themselves? Mods are drug users past and/or present, I think you should go and look at some of the mods history before making that kind of comment, some have had major drug abuse issues.

this forum isn't something that can be considered a place for people to just be and share anymore. it's an organization with a fixed agenda and rules and goals and the bureaucracy that comes with being an organization. and that's where the human factor and the equality dies sooner or later.

It would be good for you to give specifics on what you think people aren't allowed to do now because of this, the posts that I read daily aren't holding back on things like drug use, how to tech etc, the only real thing drug related that I see getting cracked down is sourcing, I often see these posts before the mods have a chance to remove them and frankly the posters are taking the piss in the 1st place by even posting them, it's a key rule, and it's there explicitly to stop the site from being closed down. There are plenty of ways to figure out how to source drugs, you don't need to ask on a HR forum to figure that out!

My personal perception is that the vast bulk of other stuff I see being removed is abuse/off topic/inappropriate/spam. My view might be wrong because it's a snapshot of what I see, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

If you want to talk about shit that this site doesn't allow, there are other sites that do allow it, frankly the traffic and volume of posts there is pretty poor compared to BL, draw your own conclusions as to why. Frankly sourcing drugs is not hard!

i actually wondered about point 43. sorry, 27 F

I am not a lawyer but I am able to read and interpret legal documents much better than the average layman.

So here is my none AI generated interpretation of 27 F, those with better legal understand please do correct me if I'm wrong.

if you read the section and look at the legal intent I think it's trying to stop fuckwads from taking down content from the site, it's actually protecting us by making it harder for them to send stupid requests to remove posts/data etc by forcing them to act in a way that is legally robust. point 27 F specifically effectively is saying if you want to take shit down then you must tell the site who you are, if you don't the site will tell you to fuck off, if you do provide it and you lie, then you are opening yourself up to the risk of perjury. This applies in the U.S. because that's required for the U.S. legal system.

It's more akin to DCMA takedown request protection.

Personally I think the only real question I have is why this is U.S. only and not international, I suspect I know the reasons, U.S. is a big user base, generally litigious, and seems to have a high number of twats with anti drug agenda or personal gain reasons (money) that mean they are more likely to need this in that region, and doing this for every territory globally will increase legal costs significantly. That's my person read of the situation, but please do add what you're actually concerned about.

27. Request for removal: If you are participating in the Services while located within the U.S., you must provide us with the following information when requesting us to remove anything from the Services. Such a request must be made through an official correspondence and sent to [email protected]:

1. A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
2. Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
3. Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
4. Information reasonably sufficient to permit us to contact the complaining party, such as a name, address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
5. A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
6. A notarized statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

are you are lawyer or something?

Did you even read my post let alone the T&Cs themselves?

AI summary for the lazy

i would really like to have the time to go through your summary and check if what it says really represents what the new agreement says.

why don't you, the more people who actually read it and comment on it the better.

i don't and i don't even care very much, just wondered how many people might use your version as the real thing instead of actually reading the full agreement.

welcome to the real world, shock horror people don't always read the T&Cs! IMHO better an open summary that anyone can go and verify than not bothering to read anything at all.

it's not like I didn't tell people to still read the T&Cs as well!

AI summary for the lazy - but please read the original T&Cs still!!