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
By this logic, oxygenating a fish tank to provide the fish with oxygen is animal abuse. You are artificially adding the necessary oxygen into the water, after all.
Okay, so this is just factually wrong.
Putting oxygen in a tank is necessary for the health of the fish. Feeding a cat meat is necessary for the health of the cat.
It’s also a false equivalence.
There is no workaround for oxygenating fish tanks; we don’t find something that ‘might work as well as oxygen’ according to poorly done studies. We just give them oxygen, the thing they actually need to live.
I don’t see the falsehood of the equivalence at all. Living things need certain atoms and molecules as inputs. Provide those, and the living thing lives. The rest is just vibes.
The problem here is they need specific molecules. A vegan diet does not give cats those correct necessary molecules.
A century ago you might’ve been right, but not anymore.
Any molecule found in meat can be found or made in other ways if we want. The body is complicated, but not that complicated.
It doesn’t work. No study shows it does, save for a few poorly-done ones paid for by vegan think-tanks, and even those are ambiguous. Maybe one day we will manage it, but right now we can’t.
This is not sufficient evidence to support a claim that it does not work. We use the preponderance of evidence we have, absolutely while examining potential flaws in the research. We do not simply discard all studies paid for by vegans though, or those with some ambiguity.
If you could provide any evidence it results in poor health, you should do so. Logical arguments based on animal classification systems of their behaviors and lifestyles in their natural habitats are meaningless to the discussion though, when the nuts and bolts of biochemistry is what we’re talking about.
This person helpfully provided links.
Also, the ASPCA says it doesn’t work. You know, the guys who’s job it is to look after the health and safety of pets?
Give me actual long-term scientific studies that say cats can go vegan and we can talk. Otherwise, we’re done.
The ASPCA stance is a lot more nuanced than that, if you investigate the whole thing.
Toodles.
Oh man, it’s clearly more complicated than you realize.
You are more than welcome to explain your reasoning on any complication I missed.
And yes, nuance very much matters. That’s the cause of this whole problem, the misunderstanding of the nuance of how scientific classification systems work. This whole argument is fundamentally no different from the “pluto is a planet” thing.
You seem to think we just add a little of nutrients X and vitamin Y and it’s all sorted.
This is nothing like Pluto being a planet FFS. If you really think that a classification system of planets changing is the same as nutritional science then we are too far apart to have a conversation. One is a system we made to classify things, it’s based on rules we made. We didn’t make the rules on what a cat needs to survive or how easy it is to delivery needed nutrients.
In what way is it not sorted if all the necessary nutrients are provided?
This all stems from people using the classification of cats as obligate carnivores to justify an inappropriate claim. That’s not what classification systems are for. It is definitely the same as misunderstanding how Pluto can get reclassified.