For what I expect are similar reasons the list of forbidden image and text content gets so detailed:

5.0.6: No visual content depicting executions, murder, suicide, dismemberment, visible innards, excessive gore, or charred bodies. No content depicting, promoting or enabling animal abuse. No erotic or otherwise suggestive media or text content featuring depictions of rape, sexual assault, or non-consensual violence. All other violent content requires a NSFW tag.

I now know from this list that posting Hieronymus Bosch’s “The Garden of Earthly Delights” would be problematic even though it wouldn’t occur to me that medieval illustrations of fictional torture would break the rules. And I now no longer know whether this instance considers the usage of variously themed slurs as against the rules, especially in contexts where they’re not direct personal user attacks.

What is socially acceptable obviously varies widely from culture to culture, and definitely instance to instance. The brief list from the previous version helped me to identify the overall culture of the instance to figure out if I would be welcome here. Now instead I’m just not sure if a sweet Aztec decorated human skull from c. 1350CE is allowed because it is half literal human remains, half turquoise, haematite and gold mosaic.

I appreciate that finding the balance here is very difficult. It may just be because it’s late and I’m tired, but I feel less certain about what the expectations are with this version than I did the previous. I hope you will consider returning a bit more detail to section 5.

That statement is a bit like someone saying ‘all lives matter’ in response to people saying ‘black lives matter’ after another black person is gunned down.

“I’m not insulting you specifically. I am just saying that I think all jewish people are secretly space aliens who eat children” and so forth. It is not bullying because it is not specifically targeting a user. There is no violation of privacy and they held short of talking about what they want to do to that ethnic group. And “harassment” is incredibly nebulous

In a good faith interaction: Common sense prevails and that is flagged under the spirit of the rule (even if I am not sure if I agree that IS against the spirit of it). But you specify stuff like this to remove any ambiguity. Largely for the same reasons you have a TOS/COC to begin with. Wheaton’s Rule was “sufficient” for small message boards back before any of us really cared about bigotry. But even that was largely replaced with real rules the moment the user count broke the hundred mark.

But also? The world is a really shitty place where the best you can generally hope for is that social media is only kind of racist and hateful (oh reddit) rather than being run by literal white supremacists. Text about discrimination goes a long way toward saying “Hey, we are at least trying”.

So is the thinking that a catch all 5.0.1 sufficient? Or will there be restoration of specific rules against discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc.

Did you guys talk to a lawyer before doing this? Cause I think a lawyer would explain to you exactly why.

You probably should have talked to a lawyer before trying to draft up a legal document.