Intro
We would like to address some of the points that have been raised by some of our users (and by one of our communities here on Lemmy.World) on /c/vegan regarding a recent post concerning vegan diets for cats. We understand that the vegan community here on Lemmy.World is rightfully upset with what has happened. In the following paragraphs we will do our best to respond to the major points that we've gleaned from the threads linked here.
Links
Actions in question
Admin removing comments discussing vegan cat food in a community they did not moderate.
The comments have been restored.
The comments were removed for violating our instance rule against animal abuse (https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/#11-attacks-on-users). Rooki is a cat owner himself and he was convinced that it was scientific consensus that cats cannot survive on a vegan diet. This originally justified the removal.
Even if one of our admins does not agree with what is posted, unless the content violates instance rules it should not be removed. This was the original justification for action.
Removing some moderators of the vegan community
Removed moderators have been reinstated.
This was in the first place a failure of communication. It should have been clearly communicated towards the moderators why a certain action was taken (instance rules) and that the reversal of that action would not be considered (during the original incident).
The correct way forward in this case would have been an appeal to the admin team, which would have been handled by someone other than the admin initially acting on this.
We generally discuss high impact actions among team before acting on them. This should especially be the case when there is no strong urgency on the act performed. Since this was only a moderator removal and not a ban, this should have been discussed among the team prior to action.
Going forward we have agreed, as a team, to discuss such actions first, to help prevent future conflict
Posting their own opposing comment and elevating its visibility
Moderators' and admins' comments are flagged with flare, which is okay and by design on Lemmy. But their comments are not forced above the comments of other users for the purpose of arguing a point.
These comments were not elevated to appear before any other users comments.
In addition, Rooki has since revised his comments to be more subjective and less reactive.
Community Responses
The removed comments presented balanced views on vegan cat food, citing scientific research supporting its feasibility if done properly.
Presenting scientifically backed peer reviewed studies is 100% allowed, and encouraged. While we understand anyone can cherry pick studies, if a individual can find a large amount of evidence for their case, then by all accounts they are (in theory) technically correct.
That being said, using facts to bully others is not in good faith either. For example flooding threads with JSTOR links.
The topic is controversial but not clearly prohibited by site rules.
That is correct, at the time there was no violation of site wide rules.
Rooki's actions appear to prioritize his personal disagreement over following established moderation guidelines.
Please see the above regarding addressing moderator policy.
Conclusions
Regarding moderator actions
We will not be removing Rooki from his position as moderator, as we believe that this is a disproportionate response for a heat-of-the-moment response.
Everybody makes mistakes, and while we do try and hold the site admin staff to a higher standard, calling for folks resignation from volunteer positions over it would not fair to them. Rooki has given up 100's of hours of his free time to help both Lemmy.World, FHF and the Fediverse as a whole grown in far reaching ways. You don't immediately fire your staff when they make a bad judgment call.
While we understand that this may not be good enough for some users, we hope that they can be understanding that everyone, no matter the position, can make mistakes.
We've also added a new by-laws section detailing the course of action users should ideally take, when conflict arises. In the event that a user needs to go above the admin team, we've provided a secure link to the operations team (who the admin's report to, ultimately). See https://legal.lemmy.world/bylaws/#12-site-admin-issues-for-community-moderators for details.
TL;DR In the event of an admin action that is deemed unfair or overstepping, moderators can raise this with our operations team for an appeal/review.
Regarding censorship claims
Regarding the alleged censorship, comments were removed without a proper reason. This was out of line, and we will do our best to make sure that this does not happen again. We have updated our legal policy to reflect the new rules in place that bind both our user AND our moderation staff regarding removing comments and content. We WANT users to hold us accountable to the rules we've ALL agreed to follow, going forward. If members of the community find any of the rules we've set forth unreasonable, we promise to listen and adjust these rules where we can. Our terms of service is very much a living document, as any proper binding governing document should be.
Controversial topics can and should be discussed, as long as they are not causing risk of imminent physical harm. We are firm believers in the hippocratic oath of "do no harm".
We encourage users to also list pros and cons regarding controversial viewpoints to foster better discussion. Listing the cons of your viewpoint does not mean you are wrong or at fault, just that you are able to look at the issue from another perspective and aware of potential points of criticism.
While we want to allow our users to express themselves on our platform, we also do not want users to spread mis-information that risks causing direct physical harm to another individual, origination or property owned by the before mentioned. To echo the previous statement "do no harm".
To this end, we have updated our legal page to make this more clear. We already have provisions for attacking groups, threatening individuals and animal harm, this is a logical extension of this to both protect our users and to protect our staff from legal recourse and make it more clear to everyone. We feel this is a very reasonable compromise, and take these additional very seriously.
Sincerely,
FHF / LemmyWorld Operations Team
EDIT: Added org operations contact info
To be clear, while the idea that discussion is welcome is good the moderators of c/vegan do not tolerate discussion. Any opinion that goes against the orthodoxy of the echo bunker leads to a permanent ban. If you express any opinion other that, "It's fully acceptable to force your extremist philosophy on an obligate carnivore by feeding it an unnatural vegan diet" you will be banned. It's an incredibly closed minded and intolerant community.
Forgive me for being suspicious of your comment. There is a huge anti-vegan bias in society, and many argue against veganism, not in good faith. Can you provide any examples of the mods doing this?
Sure...this discussion came up a couple of months ago. Several people argued that feeding a herbivorous diet to a carnivore was animal abuse. Everyone arguing that point, including myself, was banned and all comments not supporting the group think in the echo bunker were removed.
Need more?
More would be great. What sort of arguments did you make? We're you discussing the science?
Basically the same as we're listed here. Obligate carnivores require a largely meat based diet. Some guys book where he claims is ok isn't good enough proof. You need peer reviewed and published science with a large population over a long time to be sure.
Just very obvious stuff. Carnivores require meat.
This is not exclusive to c/vegan; other communities have similar issues you have brought up; they have also been called out by a few, but c/vegan is getting the most traction.
It goes back to user, mod, and admin control over their communities.
This post seems to address the overpolicing conflict.
There probably just sick of every thread, every damn thread, having people coming in and trying to debate. It's not a community for that and asking people to not do that is well within their rights. If somebody went into an anime community and kept saying live action is better, they should get banned. Doesn't mean that community is an echo chamber.
Someone linked the mod log. I read it and totally looks like echo chamber to me. You tow the line or you get removed. Did that admin open a can of worms step in doodoo and track it through the ~~house~~ instance making a mess? Yup. But the pot is calling the kettle black when it cries about the censorship aspect. These seem like folks that belong on reddit or their own instance because its the personal kingdom of the mods being encroached on that is their real problem.
The rest of lemmy.world admins are now trying to navigate this mess and no matter what they chose to do a large chunk of thier userbase is going to be unhappy. As far as I can see this was the least damaging way they could move on. There simply is no good ending to this, just a least bad one.
Ed: I've seen your voting patterns kids, your dissaproval of this post means nothing to me. I have no respect for people who purity test thier own social group.
What you're describing is an echo bunker. The anime example isn't a good fit, though. In the case of c/vegan they are taking about animal abuse, feeding an animal that evolved to eat meat and that needs to eat meat to be healthy a vegan diet. Whether anime or live action is better doesn't harm anything. Feeding a cat a vegan diet has a real possibility of causing health problems or death.
No one gives a shit what they want to eat. I look at the pictures of the brown slop that they post claiming its the best recipe ever and laugh. I don't care. When they talk about doing that to a cat or dog I care. Those are the posts that get a lot of reaction from people who love animals.
The hate that vegans get on Lemmy is when they push themselves into discussions of farming, hunting, fishing, etc. to push their ideological purity on other and to shame people who are just going about their lives or when the talk about abusing their pets.
So when vegans talk about abuse it deserves moderation but when non-vegans talk about killing, maiming, and eating animals that's totally cool, not abuse, and above reproach? One should have outsiders come in the the community to give their opinions but the other shouldn't? Come on, you're not really that bad at making a point, are you?
Your question is loaded with a sense of absolute moral superiority. I raise chickens for eggs and meat. I don't abuse them or maim them. I treat them well, feed them high quality food, and provide clean, dry, warm housing that protects them from predators. The roam freely during the day and come home to roost at night. When it is time for them to die they die in the most humane way possible.
What vegans are talking about is pure, selfish arrogance. They're going to take a carnivore and force it to eat an inappropriate diet to satisy their own selfish needs. Get a herbivore instead. Get a rabbit. They are cat like and the thrive on a vegan diet.
If you treat your chickens so well and feel so good about it, why did you put your killing them in the passive voice like it's something that just happens? Just say you chop their heads off or whatever. Don't hide it.
"Vegans are arrogant and abusive but let me tell you why I'm allowed to kill animals and am above reproach." Come on, you kettle, it's clearly not arrogance you have a problem with.
I'm saying you're arrogant and have a sense of moral superiority. I guess you didn't understand that, but you did say you didn't care about my opinion, so you doubled down on the arrogance and moral superiority. So like I said, you don't have a problem with arrogance, you just have a problem when it's not you doing it.
Weak.
You bring out a playground insult and call me weak? Dude, even if the chicken slaughter doesn't shame you, this should.
We were done when you trotted out, "I know you are but what am I?"
Cool, then don't self reflect at all. You don't seem like you're good at it anyway. After all, we were done a while ago according to you and you don't care about my opinion, so stop being weird and defending yourself. If you respond again, it means you do care about my opinion and you were wrong about being done.
Danth's Law
The most ironic use of that ever, lol. You get why it's ironic, right? That's hilarious. Thanks for the laugh, bud.
It's funny that you think you can tell me what I'm thinking. "If you reply it means you care about my opinion." That is the height of arrogance.
So you didn't get the irony?
You came with, "I know you are but what am I?" three times then told me that if I commented it meant that I cared what you thought. There was no irony at all, just sadness that I didn't get a real discussion but a series of falacious school yard taunts. Weak.
This is how I do it.