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
The comments in here are unbelievable. This post was about the systemic moderation issues that lead to the incident, the team’s response to it, and how to deal with such a problems in the future.
Half the comments: CATS CAN’T EAT VEGAN
The other half: CATS CAN TOO EAT VEGAN
There are people here who need to go back to fucking reddit.
Why don’t they just make their own instance?
All I’m getting from this entire saga is that vegans on here are lunatics. From forcing this nonsense on pets, to all of the follow-up, this is a very bad look for the community, from somone looking in from the outside.
This is some cultish behavior…
Lunatic vegans on lemmy? No way dude
I don’t remember my login so can I just get an admin ban? You clearly don’t give two shits about animal cruelty so consider me a cat.
So… just to check my understanding, what you’re saying is that whether or not cats can survive on a vegan diet, it doesn’t matter? Right? You’re saying that you decided the admins overstepped and you regret approaching ambiguity the way you did? I suppose that seems reasonable. There’s plenty of misinfo all over Lemmy as is, and as such there’s gotta be various ways we can handle it - from top-down bans to trusting the readers.
As for the diet stuff, what, are they using lab-grown meat? Is that the TLDR here?
As for the diet stuff, what, are they using lab-grown meat?
No, the food is plant based and has all the essential nutrients, either inherently or added (like synthetic Taurin for example).
The reactionary vegan hate is real.
I love the compassionate intervention that allows @Rooki@lemmy.world the opportunity to learn and correct his behaviors and models that level of compassion. Thank you very much! 😊
Me too.
HaHaHa! Well done #threadiverse. The system mostly works. As a vegan and dog father, I watched this play out and found it both funny and instructive. Hell hath no fury like a cat owner on the moral high ground.
good look
I’m sorry, but anyone forcing cats, who are exclusively meateaters to eat vegan food are idiots.
I’m not involved with the original drama - nor do I want to entertain it to begin with - but good on you guys for being transparent
Admins are totally fine with animal cruelty, noted.And even worse are using a misinfo rule, implying they can subsist on a plant based diet when they 110% can’t because they are CARNIVOROUS. Need a definition?
Total bullshit. I’m out. I draw the line at animal cruelty, and I will not be part of a community that is okay with it.
Using the Hippocratic oath as a guide is stupid. It only applies to medical personnel that take the oath, and medical personnel haven’t taken that oath since at least the 60s because it actually has a lot of unethical shit incompatible with modern morality. For example, the original Hippocratic oath is against abortion. Does that mean that Lemmy is anti-abortion now? It also forbids surgery for kidney stones, are the admins certified to make this kind of medical decisions.
Just write or choose a good ethical framework that is actually relevant for the management of online communities. There’s better, more modern shit out there that also includes the principle of do no harm. Lemmy.World is handled by amateurs.
Just write or choose a good ethical framework that is actually relevant for the management of online communities. There’s better, more modern shit out there that also includes the principle of do no harm.
You know what would be helpful here? Actually naming and/or linking to some of these better frameworks you think they should consider using.
There’s a very simple solution to all of this. Just require the user upload a form showing that their dog or cat consented to being converted to veganism in defiance of their very nature 👍
This thread is not about your vegan vs antivegan-take but how to approach disagreements. In this regard you failed, and luckily, you are not an admin
What do you mean? All I suggested was that disagreements could be settled with an online consent form.
Id say the vegan person talking about how hard it is to make proper and healthy vegan food for cats understand cats better than a person who want to require consent forms from cats
But ye, what do I know. Im not a cat, nor am I a vegan
While we’re at it why not look for a way to force horses to only eat rare steak? I’m sure we can find a healthy way to do it if we try hard enough!
Why on earth would you do that?
I don’t know, same reason you’d force a cat to eat a vegan diet, I suppose.
Some form of mental illness that either makes you incapable of understanding the damage you’re causing to the animal, or that makes you enjoy its suffering. 🤷♂️
you realise that vegans are not force-feeding cats cucumbers and lettuce right?.
It’s scientifically formulated biscuits. That cats enjoy.
