https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39616364?scrollToComments=true
https://lemmy.world/u/[email protected]
https://lemmy.world/modlog/?userId=1957570
Underage, you will be unbanned when you turn 18 (happy birthday in advance)
I’m biased here. I’m still against .world and their tendency to use “legality” as a smokescreen. (Blaming it for banning Luigi content right after he axed that United guy has earned my ire forever.)
However… I’m almost 40, and it was always the rule to never mention your age until it didn’t matter. So on the one hand, world loves to use legality to push it’s agenda. On the other hand, this is an expected outcome.
I agree with you that no one should really mention their age, though I don’t agree with you that there’s a point where it doesn’t matter. You’ll find plenty of groups willing to discriminate against older individuals, gaming groups, activist groups, STEM groups, it’s weird but it’s unfortunately a thing.
Lemmy.world has a problem with over modderation when it is out of scope in situations like this, they also have a problem with undermoderation letting shit slide that shouldn’t like Reddit did. Lemmy.world has a lot of very big problems right now and they shouldn’t be cut slack of any of them, even if it is obvious how it happened.
This is a weird nit to pick. If you’re doing it right, you’re only mentioning your age when it doesn’t matter (in safe places or places where your age is helpful, versus places like Lemmy where someone will ban you.)
A good example would be me saying, in this thread, I’m almost 40. Anybody who can use that against me doesn’t matter to me.
I’m biased here. I’m still against .world and their tendency to use “legality” as a smokescreen. (Blaming it for banning Luigi content right after he axed that United guy has earned my ire forever.)
.world didn’t though. The admins clarified that that was never the policy.
YDI, it’s not in the TOS for funsies.
I am following my own instance TOS. If I started caring about other instance there are 100 of them.
You can ignore anything PJ says or does, he posts on the internet for a living these days. He lives for being annoying and stirring up drama.
Pay that dumbass no attention, he’s just you’re average right wing troll trying to cater to right wing narrative and giving you shit because he thinks he’s better than you.
Yeah, it seems a little odd to do a full ban for anyone under 18. Do they feel that all communities on there are not appropriate for minors?
Yes and I fully agree. Online interactions are unrated by PEGI for a reason.
Afaik, there are laws and regulations that make it more difficult to collect personal information about minors including their email address. I imagine the admins understandably just don’t want to deal with that.
That’s not really relevant in this case though, federated profiles don’t contain any of that information. They just contain the public posts and comments and anything the person might have added to their profile bio directly. They don’t contain personal information of any kind.
deleted by creator
@[email protected] FYI since I don’t think you’ve seen the new comments on your initial post
Bruh
Why we banning kids now?
What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?
😓
What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?
That’s the whole point, they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children. People are going to argue otherwise but as a trans person myself I’ve seen this and you’re not fooling anyone with your lame excuses about protecting kids. People especially those who are vulnerable need support networks, do you know how many trans kids kill themselves because they can’t get the support they need and live with abusive and controlling parents. Don’t tell me it’s to protect kids, I’m not stupid enough to buy that lie and you’re not stupid enough to think I’d buy it.
Children are not fucking chattel and I’m tired of pretending like they are.
It’s weird to confuse responsibility and mentorship with ownership.
It’s weird that you consider actions reminiscent of ownership and control, like trying to keep children away from support groups, or preventing a trans kid from expressing themselves in a way that aligns with their gender identity, responsibility or mentorship. You sound so much like a right wing troll right now, and it’s not funny or amusing.
What, are you going to say that children don’t understand their gender? That they’re confused? That all parents care for their kids and should be the only influence in their lives? It’s certainly sounds like that’s where you’re going right now.
That’s the whole point[:] they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children.
I wish I had your mind-reading ability. Without that omniscient edge this looks like the weirdest bit of teen O.D.D today.
Am I supposed to feel insulted? I don’t care what some right wing troll thinks of me. Whether you like it or not, right wing politicians push for these tactics to take support networks away from vulnerable people who they believe to have ownership of.
This is the fediverse, they can sign up to any instance that will have them.
So the account on Blahaj would be able to see and interact with any community not hosted on World, World gets to stay compliant with whatever laws it needs to abide by, everybody’s happy and there’s jam for tea.
That user’s posts also wouldn’t be visible by all of LW population, so a third of the platform
That’s an issue having a more evenly distributed userbase would solve, assuming that multiple, smaller instances wouldn’t also feel bound by similar laws. You can’t eat your cake and still have it.
Blahaj allow 16+ too.
What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?
Fortunately I have good and supportive parents.
Hey, I’m the one that decided to ban this user. I understand the frustration, but it is very much in the TOS of lemmy.world and has been for a long time.
We are having an internal discussion to see if there’s room to lower the age to 16 and if we can make exceptions for federated users.
I hope you see that this really isn’t meant as a powertrip, and we are just trying to protect the Lemmy.world site.
Sorry if I do not respond to comments quickly, it’s late in my timezone.
Disappointing, yet understandable :/ Thank you for replying, and addressing this.
Hello,
Thank you for chiming in. Exceptions for federated users would be nice, especially for someone turning 18 in a few months.
Yea, I agree, and I would personally be for that. But I am not well versed in the law, and don’t have any stake in the legal side of it all except for me liking lemmy.world, so it’s not my decision.
I really hope people understand where we as admins are coming from, we really take no enjoyment out of banning anyone (except for spammers).
Let’s hope that you can work something out!
I really hope people understand where we as admins are coming from, we really take no enjoyment out of banning anyone (except for spammers).
That’s one of the most transparent lies I’ve heard. Power corrupts, and I’ve seen plenty of lemmy.world admins who certainly do enjoy it, and who do it to people to prove a point or as a knee jerk reaction to disagreement. You can call it whatever you want to call, you can deny this fact but it does happen and I’ve seen it myself, and I’d prefer you don’t try to feed me lies I’m smart enough to see right through.
I understand that my comment was ambiguous, I tried to say that the current admins, in my experience, don’t enjoy banning people.
I don’t know if that’s entirely true for all or even most of the current ones, it certainly isn’t for past lemmy.world admins, who may or may not still be on the team.
Eh, well… I can’t really respond to that statement if I don’t know who you are talking about.
I’m sorry but the “(happy birthday in advance)” doesn’t really paint that ban in the best light
That wasn’t meant to sound mean, just something that popped up in my head because it was about a birthday.
Yeah that doesn’t at all, it definitely does come across as enjoying it and makes his statements less believable.
Removed by mod
I disagree, the account that was banned posted a lot of good content. We are not talking about 12 year olds, we are talking about people between 16 and 18.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
sag was a very valuable member of Lemmy, and so is blaze. You’re one to talk, with 0 posts.
Removed by mod
There is a place for children and the Internet with all of you is not it.
Damn bro want to censored fediverse. You know nvm.
Removed by mod
@[email protected] @[email protected] This person is just asking for an instance ban at this point. I think that comment could be considered borderline sexual harassment.
Removed by mod
Maybe the reference is lost on me but I’ll assume this is another bad faith accusation.
That person isn’t the most pleasant, they got one of their comments below removed
If someone’s being a bit of a dick, checking the modlog is always fun.
Removed by mod
Any update on this?
If LW is banning me for real then ban my all alt.
(Opinion bit)
There should definitely be an exception for federated users. @[email protected] did not sign up to lemmy.world and therefore did not agree to the ToS.
(I am not a lawyer, anyone else can correct the stuff I say below)
Since lw isn’t storing sag’s data (apart from public posts and comments) there shouldn’t be any concerns with child data protection. lemm.ee would be serving them content that under 18s shouldn’t view, not lw (unless they are hosting it, which I don’t think you do?). I may be missing something (again, not a lawyer) but what is the point of this other than being (in my opinion, a bit too) careful with the law?
I’m half and half. I get it, liability and all.
I do think it’s healthy for young people to get more info outside of the bubble of their family and school and we got away with crazy shit on the internet back in the day.
But that was also when the internet was relatively new and a lot of sketchy shit was being done to kids online during that time. Governments today are cracking down on sites that allow kids to use them, and no one wants to be the site admin who convinced yet another European country to draft draconian “think of the children” anti-privacy laws.
The other part of it too is, c’mon, basically rule #1 of using the internet is never admit when you’re underage. Like every other Millennial out there, I was born on Jan 1, 1960.
YDI. The instance rules state that minors are not “allowed to use or access the website”. To my knowledge, Lemmy as a whole does not have the infrastructure to age gate content except by users voluntarily filtering out NSFW content themselves. If somebody posts mature 18+ content anywhere on Lemmy and the admins of a server know or at least suspect that an account is ran by a minor who may see that content via federation with that server, the admins may be held legally liable. Implementing an age gated system in the Fediverse that is effective in filtering out mature content is the only way to avert servers being held liable if they know of an account that announces themself (even jokingly) as a minor. It’s not powertripping; it’s covering the instance’s back against an instant and total shutdown. There is a case to be made about hypocrisy and double standards, say with servers that allow and/or endorse piracy, but that is not as dire in the eyes of the law and most people’s morals.
Not if they’re a federated user. They’re not my user to worry about. Even if they say they’re not 18 it doesn’t apply imo, they’re not interacting directly with lemmy.zip.
I think that is unwise of lemmy.zip’s admin. Their instance rules state “4.1: No one under 18 years of age is allowed to use or access the website.”, and I think the admin’s course of action would be contradictory to that. A NSFW post on one server can federate to lemmy.zip and then federate to a server hosting a minor (i.e., the minor passively used the lemmy.zip website); in that case, which is what the lemmy.world admins were trying to avoid, a server which is neither hosting a minor nor hosting NSFW content would be culpable in bringing the NSFW content to whom they would know or suspect is a minor. This may be uncharted territory legally due to the newness and niche-ness of the Fediverse, but it seems in poor judgment for an admin to be willing to take that risk. Yeah, it sucks for the user, I don’t dispute that; but if the law turns out poorly for the admins, then everybody loses access to that instance.
You’re getting it a bit backwards.
Here’s the simple answer - can I delete your account or prevent you from accessing your home server? No. Therefore I’m not offering nor providing YOU a service. I am providing a service to people who have signed up to lemmy.zip.
I own and run lemmy.zip. I state that only over 18s can sign up. I do this because lemmy as a software cannot prevent a person from seeing nsfw content if they’re under 18, which is a limitation of the software. However admins can turn off nsfw content entirely, such as feddit.uk does. Anything tagged nsfw their users cannot see.
The home instance is liable for their own policies. If they allow under 18s and have nsfw turned on, that’s their risk not mine.
A NSFW post on one server can federate to lemmy.zip and then federate to a server hosting a minor (i.e., the minor passively used the lemmy.zip website)
That’s not how it works and they’re not using lemmy.zip at any point during that anyway. Otherwise your argument would suggest that we are all subject to every websites ToS even if we’ve never been on that website, which isn’t the case.
You should probably update the ToS to clarify this.
Is anything over https: a website? I’d argue its lemm.ee forwarding the post on his behalf.
So they banned an under age user from only their instance for the exact amount of time until they become old enough to be a legitimate user on their instance?
Man I want Reddit mod drama back. Where’s I was banned for sleeping with my step mod?!?
Aw, they actually did the ban. That’s unfortunate.
On one hand, yes, legal liability and all that, but on the other hand half the site is copyright violations. The law only matters sometimes. I say this as someone who has hosted web communities myself, there’s no reason to be banning for something like age on these instances, especially when we’re talking 16 and not 12. It’s unenforceable and trivial enough that there’s no legal pressure to do so.
I just think they should make a new account and not say that they are underage. I don’t so much have a problem with people being underage online but saying that you are is putting an unnecessary target on your back.
Wierd .ee modlog doesn’t show me banned?
I think it only appears on .worlds modlog
I’m really not sure how the TOS apply given it opens with:
This Terms of Service applies to your access to and active use of https://lemmy.world/, it’s API’s and sub-domain services (ex alt GUIs)(we, us, our the website, Lemmy.World, or LW) as well as all other properties and services associated with Lemmy.World.
Sag wasn’t accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself. This would be like an email provider blocking a particular address from another service because the user of that address doesn’t comply with a part of their TOS.
Sag wasn’t accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself.
He posted on “[email protected]”
Maybe [email protected] could become an alternative
4.0: By agreeing to this section of the document, you accept that:
4.0.0: You may only use Lemmy.zip if you can clearly understand and actively comply with the terms laid out on this page.
4.0.1: You have not previously been permanently banned from the website.
4.0.2: You are at least 18 years of age and over the regulated minimum age defined by your local law to access Lemmy.zip.
Just to make sure, @[email protected] , would you have instance banned that user in a similar situation?
Not if they’re a federated user. They’re not my user to worry about. Even if they say they’re not 18 it doesn’t apply imo, they’re not interacting directly with lemmy.zip.
You have to agree that you’re over 18 to use lemmy.zip directly as per ToS
Great, thanks!
Not if they’re a federated user. They’re not my user to worry about. Even if they say they’re not 18 it doesn’t apply imo, they’re not interacting directly with lemmy.zip.
4.0.2: You are at least 18 years of age and over the regulated minimum age defined by your local law to access Lemmy.zip.
Does posting to Lemmy.zip not count as accessing?
Just replied to another of your comments, but in summary no. They’re not one of my users and I don’t hold any data on them nor do they access lemmy.zip directly.
Ah, thanks
And I disagree that that counts as making use of the service. Lemmy also sends Webmentions, if someone with a world account posts a blog post from someone and world then sends a Webmention to that blog, does lemmy.world’s TOS apply to the blogger? TOS applying over distributed systems is frankly impracticable.
And I disagree that that counts as making use of the service.
… what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the service’s comms?
Is it impossible to make use of the service unless you’re a user signed up on the service?
If so, should it be regarded that admins have no authority to bar any user from another instance from the admin’s instance?
… what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the service’s comms?
Using lemmy.word to access content. Using https://feddit.uk/post/25339637 to view the content is making use of feddit.uk’s services, using https://lemmy.world/post/26548121 is making use of lemmy.world’s services. Would using an archive to access a lemmy.world post be making use of the service?
Is it impossible to make use of the service unless you’re a user signed up on the service?
I wouldn’t say so, even going to lemmy.world without an account would be making use of the service in my mind.
If so, should it be regarded that admins have no authority to bar any user from another instance from the admin’s instance?
No? Community spaces can still have rules that govern themselves (that’s why sidebars federate), it’s just that terms of service are for people making use of the service.
Using lemmy.word to access content. Using https://feddit.uk/post/25339637 to view the content is making use of feddit.uk’s services, using https://lemmy.world/post/26548121 is making use of lemmy.world’s services. Would using an archive to access a lemmy.world post be making use of the service?
Can you post to Lemmy.world using an archive?
If not, the question seems of dubious relevance.
I wouldn’t say so, even going to lemmy.world without an account would be making use of the service in my mind.
But going to Lemmy.world with an account isn’t making use of the service, so long as it’s not a .world account?
No? Community spaces can still have rules that govern themselves (that’s why sidebars federate), it’s just that terms of service are for people making use of the service.
But if no user from another instance is ever using any of the instances they post to, save for their own, how can an admin have the right to ban them?
Can you post to Lemmy.world using an archive?
If not, the question seems of dubious relevance.
Federation between instances is like an archive in a state of flux. You can still access feddit.de content despite the service being down.
But going to Lemmy.world with an account isn’t making use of the service, so long as it’s not a .world account?
They didn’t go to lemmy.world with an account? They went to https://lemm.ee/c/[email protected] with a lemm.ee account. For my comment to reach you, it has to go through Cloudfair as lemmy.world uses them for DDoS protection. Am I subject to Cloudfair’s TOS?
But if no user from another instance is ever using any of the instances they post to, save for their own, how can an admin have the right to ban them?
It’s perfectly within lemmy.world’s remit to ban a user for whatever reasons they feel like, I just don’t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.
Federation between instances is like an archive in a state of flux. You can still access feddit.de content despite the service being down.
You aren’t answering the question about posting content.
They didn’t go to lemmy.world with an account? They went to https://lemm.ee/c/[email protected] with a lemm.ee account.
Okay, well, they can still go there, it’s just that their content no longer federates to lemmy.world. I guess everyone should be happy?
For my comment to reach you, it has to go through Cloudfair as lemmy.world uses them for DDoS protection. Am I subject to Cloudfair’s TOS?
That’s not even close to equivalent. If the ToS for dbzer0 included, say, something ridiculous, like “Don’t use the letter S”, and you used the letter S, would you posting here be a violation of the ToS, or not? Regardless of whether you think the ToS is reasonable.
It’s perfectly within lemmy.world’s remit to ban a user for whatever reasons they feel like, I just don’t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.
If ToS aren’t going to be enforced, you may as well not have them.
They’re not making use of the service, though. That’s a misunderstanding. They’re making use of their home servers copy of the other servers community. The user isn’t directly using the remote service.
It’d be like having two email companies, one only allowing over 18s to have an account. You wouldn’t say you’re making use of the other email service if you send an email to them. You’re not beholden to their ToS or CoC. Same applies here imo.
They’re not making use of the service, though. That’s a misunderstanding. They’re making use of their home servers copy of the other servers community. The user isn’t directly using the remote service.
What happens when a user posts to that comm?
Does that user’s post remain only on their home server’s copy of the comm, or does it get federated to the comm they posted to?
That’s irrelevant. The post wasn’t made via lemmy.zip. we have a copy of the post but the user didn’t interact at all with our website or our server. Their server did, not the user. Again, email. If I have an Outlook account and send an email to a Gmail account, I’m not suddenly subject to the Gmail ToS.
Otherwise I’d set up my own email and say anyone that emailed me had to pay me a million bananas as part of my ToS.
That’s irrelevant. The post wasn’t made via lemmy.zip. we have a copy of the post but the user didn’t interact at all with our website or our server. Their server did, not the user.
Fucking what.
If I write a poem and have someone slap it on the local bulletin board for me, have I not interacted with the bulletin board?
Furthermore, elsewhere you mention interacting as not being accessing (specifically mentioning that ‘interacting’ only has the CoC applied), but here you claim a lack of interaction as reason for non-enforcement of the ToS.
Again, email. If I have an Outlook account and send an email to a Gmail account, I’m not suddenly subject to the Gmail ToS.
Bruh, that’s literally how it works. Why do you think email accounts from other services can be banned from sending to email services? Gmail can (and literally does) run a blocklist, however ineffective, of email accounts from other email services for violating their ToS.
Fully agree.
CLM/CLA.
@[email protected] While the email analogy works well, activityPub is technically an api.
It’s a protocol, which I suppose you could argue is an API though that’d be a very liberal definition of API.
@[email protected] As per the spec:
The ActivityPub protocol is a decentralized social networking protocol based upon the [ActivityStreams] 2.0 data format. It provides a client to server API for creating, updating and deleting content, as well as a federated server to server API for delivering notifications and content.
Interesting. I’ve always considered an API a way to control some other software, while a protocol is about different software communicating. IDK, I just don’t consider APub’s S2S an API. Don’t know if that’d hold up in court, but that’s what I think.
Good. Minors shouldn’t be on the internet. They should be reading books and going outside.
I was a minor on the internet once, and it ruined me. I’m horribly addicted to screens.
One ban can’t stop me from using Internet.
Banning minors just incentivises them to lie about their age.
I’ve seen Things as a minor online. There were formative in the worst ways
I think I have the reasonability to just stay away from those.
Seeing beheadings fucked with me. Then I was shoved down the alt-right pipeline during gamergate and it took until I was nearly 18 to actually internally reflect and improve as a person. I still have issues with the black and white thinking that was so heavily emphasized. I’m working on it but its hard.
Seeing beheadings fucked with me.
I remember when that shit was going around during the iraq surge i think… i knew it was best not to see that.
Gonna go against the grain here and say YDI.
As others have mentioned, liability. The hosts of Lemmy instances are doing an incredible service enabling us to use this platform for free. And in providing that service, they are also assuming a significant amount of risk in a rather volatile legal environment. The law views a platform that allows (“targets”) minors very differently from one that is intended only for adults.
Additionally, TOS. Its as simple as that. This is not power tripping, this is just enforcement. Even if there was nothing explicity wrong about the behavior, once age is directly mentioned, liability is opened, and their hands are tied.
As a side note, there is nothing wrong with adult-only community spaces. Sometimes I want to have a discussion without worrying about whether the person on the other end is a literal child - there are enough adults that act like children as it is…
“The law discriminates against and limits the freedom of children, therefore they’re totally justified!”
Yeah ok sure
Wrong way around. The law enforces more protections for children than adults, for which platforms are held to a higher standard.
Specifically, I’m talking about the higher standards for data privacy, user tracking, and content moderation. These are things that are trivial for large companies to implement, but would be a huge hurdle for small teams of unpaid volunteers.
Many people would like you to believe that, the reality is that these laws are designed to keep children away from support networks and just further enforce the idea of parents owning their children. They use these same garbage excuses when talking about children and HRT or puberty blockers, and trying to block trans kids from getting these treatments. They call that “protection” as well.
Things aren’t as they say they are. People aren’t honest about their motives. If that’s new to you, wake up, it’s 2025 people have been lying about the real reasons for decades, it’s not and never has been a new concept.
You make some good points. I agree there are a lot of traditional ideals engrained in our justice system that enforce archaic power structures and perpetuate harm onto vulnerable people. And you’re right, people often use “protecting the children” as an excuse to take more and more rights away from the general populace.
That said, I still don’t think its productive to direct that frustration and anger at a volunteer moderator on a free, nonprofit platform.
I’m glad we agree on the part out our rights being suppressed and taken away, though I don’t agree that they shouldn’t feel the heat from their actions. People who claim to be our allies and support us but capitulate to their own fear of something bad happening and oppressing us, are not real allies, and they need to be held accountable and called out for it.
They aren’t even really doing this for liability they’re doing it out of misguided fear and going above and beyond. They are preemptively choosing to be collaborators. Their choice I guess, but they chose yield to fear, they don’t get to choose not to get heat and callouts for it, and I’m glad people are giving them shit for it.
For real, this type of apologia is downright disgusting.
Just for clarity, are you saying that all rules and regulation which discriminate against young people are inherently bad? e.g. banning them from consuming tobacco, having gambling adverts placed on their shows or being allowed in nightclubs?
Nobody said this… There is clear harm linked to booze what is the clear harm with teenagers using Lemmy… Over let’s say tik tok?!
If you’re looking for someone to say it, you’ve got me here. Banning children from tobacco doesn’t stop them from getting it, banning gambling adverts won’t stop them from doing it (cereal box rewards etc) and usually find their ways into nightclubs with alcohol anyways. The only reason these laws exist are to control and subjugate children, not “for their own good.” Such paternalist thought leads to shit like children marriage and any number of different types of child abuse, cause if your kid doesn’t have any rights, what’s stopping the parent from sending their kids to conversion therapy and misgendering then every day?
Fair enough, I think its a rather bizarre take that we shouldnt try stop people who havent fully developed their reasoning capacities from harming themselves but at least you’re consistent.
Do you think that refusing to acknowledge a child’s gender identity and sending them to conversion therapy is protecting them from harm? If so, tell me. How does the act of having one’s gender identity respected cause harm?
Tell me this because you seem to believe that things like Gender affirmation and access to online spaces, are on the same level as drugs and alcohol, or you’re giving the impression that you do.
The fact that you’re even comparing being on Lemmy or probably also Puberty blockers and HRT to Booze and tobacco shows your motives transparently. Maybe instead of making bad faith comparisons to things that have nothing to do with each other you should actually be thinking of the kids who are hurt by the idea of parents owning kids. Like abused children, or trans kids.
I literally just asked to clarify your position, that you chose to project transphobia onto me from that says more about you than me.
The fact that you are comparing access to spaces like Lemmy to drugs, alcohol, and tobacco says enough about your motives to let me know that any further discussion with you is fruitless. You’re trying to get me to say something that you could claim was implying I support kids taking drugs or alcohol so you could say that the “groomer” (me) supports giving children harmful substances. Ignoring the fact that access to spaces like Lemmy, and access to drugs and alcohol aren’t even remotely similar.
Eh, kinda half and half. Kids these days seem to forget rule #1 of the internet: if you’re under 18 never admit it anywhere, anytime, for any reason.
Hell, don’t even admit you made your account when you were underage, but aren’t now. I’ve seen regular forums and MMORPGs ban people who admitted they were underage at the time they made the account, but not anymore
I feel like the rules of the internet should be taught again, or at least particularly stuff like “don’t feed the trolls”. All of these engagement based algorithms are too focused on pushing bait content.
