this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
293 points (99.0% liked)

memes

14637 readers
3838 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com -4 points 2 days ago (3 children)

You can't be compelled to give information. We have the fifth amendment.

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

we ~~have~~ had the fifth amendment.

FTFY. Laws are only worth the paper they're written on and the willingness of the executive to actually execute them. Here in the US, the latter is now missing, and the former isn't for sale (yet, give them time to put it on the Russian black market)

[–] mmddmm@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago

That explicitly do not apply to companies.

Also, it's evident that no, you aren't really protected by it. That's why a lot of countries forbid sending personal information into the US. You have secret courts on the Executive branch that can force you to disclose anything to them and keep that fact secret.

[–] sys110x@feddit.nl 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Whoever wants to compel you for information will add financial/mental/physical pressure until you no longer wish to remain silent. That's true in democratic governments, stories/history tells us it's worse in autocratic ones.

You have the right to remain silent.. the question is whether you can with external pressure.

[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, that's a problem in every country then, that's not specific to America.

[–] sys110x@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago

Correct, it's a concern everywhere. I'll still lean towards stable countries as a host as the risk is lower.

It's a Lemmy instance, not the secret to world peace. Very few individuals on this planet would undergo any applied compliance pressure from a government agency just for others to continue using a self-hosted social media instance. Appealing in court and following the legal process? Sure, if you can get the time off work and can take the financial hit. Facing threats of raids, arrests, deportation, etc? That's magnitudes tougher.

It wouldn't be reasonable for us to expect John from down the road to prioritise keeping their Lemmy instance up over whatever is happening locally at the time that impacts them. It's easier for everyone, including potential hosts in unstable countries, to sign up to instances where the risk is lower.