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
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...
Vegans are fine, it are those that enforce/demand it from others that are radicals, all radicals are lunatics.
meat eaters are fine. it's just those that enforce and demand it from others.
Are they in the room with you right now?
yes. spewing their toxic meat identifying propaganda!
Only joking. some of my best friends pay people to kill animals for them.
You get that from anywhere with a chamber that echos well enough. There's the folks who don't have kids or want them, and then there's the anti-natalists who call the people who have children breeders and their kids crotchspawn. There's the Christians and the Religious Right. Jews and Zionists. List goes on.
don't for get the toxic masculinity style meat eaters!
Not sure how thats relevant to my comment. Are you sure you're replying to the right person?
some people eat meat. some people make it part of their core identity. it's funny.
I haven't seen echo chambers for the "Bacon is my personality" guys at all, while all the others mentioned are definitely things that exist.
Says the guy who's entire comment history is identifing by what they eat.
no you!
Very mature
I think this is showing that about 70% of the people on here are incapable of reconsidering their positions on something.
To me thats upsetting, but then again lemmy.world is the low hanging fruit of the fediverse. Other servers would never have picked this fight to begin with.
It's almost like Lemmy is just another social media site with the same types of people as every other social media site. Regardless of how seemingly a lot of Lemmy users view themselves and Lemmy as a whole.
Yeah...and entirely unsurprising.
Someone is being quick to make judgements.
Source
Source
Im no vegan, and was originally convinced that giving cats vegan food was animal abuse, and am still sure its best for cats to eat meat But really, seeing so much people just saying 'vegans are hysteric/lunatic/cultist' without any more reflection gave me a weird vibe, like it's the exact same rethoric used against any progressist idea It got me thinking, like I think I disagree with vegans on the vegan cat food thing but people are being so mean to vegans and tolerant to power abuse, i'd rather be on the vegan side
Its likely because most of the arguments against vegan cat food are "of course its bad", which is a horrible reason to think anything.
I hope some people also noticed this and allowed them the opportunity to learn more about what is possible for a cats diet.
Same boat here. I'm not a vegan (pescatarian) but it seems to me people are reacting (understandably) emotionally because everyone loves pets and wants the best for them.
You're probably right, I did not see things from that point of view. It would make sense that this awful reaction is partly due to emotional aspects. Thanks for pointing it out!
my only argument for the vegan food is this: if the cat enjoys the food and it provides all the nutrients then what is the issue?
No one is suggesting we force feed cats wall paper paste.
Caring about animal abuse is cultish behavior?
No. Caring about animal welfare and refusing to support the industrial farming complex is noble and admirable.
Trying to force your diet and ideas onto animals that cannot object is fucked up.
If you can't feed your pet a proper diet do not get a pet.
cats are quite capable of leaving if they are not getting food they enjoy.
absolutely fucking insane - imagine suggesting a pet could "leave if they don't like it" for any other form of animal abuse.
Insane, unless you have ever had a semi feral cat.
If you haven't done the smallest iota of research into what vegan pet foods entail, declaring them an improper diet as a knee jerk reaction is, quite frankly, not a good look for you.
So far the only "research" shared on this thread has been a marketing blurb from a manufacturer who makes this stuff.
Not sure the people arguing for this are able to actually conduct research, let alone post about it in an intelligent way.
Considering all the links posted in the last circlejerk thread were dismissed out of hand as "pro vegan" I'm not surprised nobody is wasting their time here.
Not sure the people arguing against this are aware how much corn, rice, soy, and supplemental taurine is in the meat based foods they give their cats already anyway, so it hardly seems worthwhile to go back to square one every fifth post.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YxjGa0MXfAc
Let me know which parts you disagree with.
yeah. downvote a video of a guy presenting work in the field.
Feel free to do some research. I'm sure you'd trust your own eyes better than some random posting here.