this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
30 points (59.6% liked)

Lemmy.world Support

3237 readers
3 users here now

Lemmy.world Support

Welcome to the official Lemmy.world Support community! Post your issues or questions about Lemmy.world here.

This community is for issues related to the Lemmy World instance only. For Lemmy software requests or bug reports, please go to the Lemmy github page.

This community is subject to the rules defined here for lemmy.world.

To open a support ticket Static Badge


You can also DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport or email [email protected] (PGP Supported) if you need to reach our directly to the admin team.


Follow us for server news 🐘

Outages 🔥

https://status.lemmy.world



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In my view as a long-time moderator, the purpose of moderation is conflict resolution and ensuring the sitewide rules are followed. As reported today by !vegan@lemmyworld, moderator Rooki's vision appears to be that their personal disagreement with someone else's position takes priority over the rules and is enough to remove comments in a community they don't moderate, remove its moderators for the comments, and effectively resort to hostile takeover by posting their own comment with an opposing view (archived here) and elevating it for visiblity.

The removed comments relate to vegan cat food. As seen in the modlog, Rooki removed a number of pretty balanced comments explaining that while there are problematic ways to feed cats vegan, if done properly, cats can live on vegan cat food. Though it is a controversial position even among vegans, there is scientific research supporting it, like this review from 2023 or the papers co-authored by professor Andrew Knight. These short videos could also work as a TL;DR of his knowledge on the matter. As noted on Wikipedia, some of the biggest animal advocacy organizations support the notion of vegan cat food, while others do not. Vegan pet food brands, including Ami, Evolution Diet, and Benevo have existed for years and are available throughout the world, clearly not prohibited by law in countries with laws against animal abuse.

To summarize, even if you don't agree with the position of vegan cat food being feasible, at the very least you have to acknowledge that the matter is not clear-cut. Moreover, there is no rule of lemmy.world that prohibits those types of conversations unless making a huge stretch to claim that it falls under violent content "promoting animal abuse" in the context of "excessive gore" and "dismemberment".

For the sake of the argument, even if we assume that the truth is fully on Rooki's side and discussions of vegan cat food is "being a troll and promoting killing pets", the sitewide rules would have to be updated to reflect this view, and create a dangerous precedent, enabling banning for making positive comments about junk food (killing yourself), being parents who smoke (killing your kids), being religious "because it's not scientific" and so on. Even reddit wouldn't go that far, and there are plenty of conversations on vegan cat food on reddit.

Given Rooki's behavior and that it has already resulted in forcing the vegan community out of lemmy.world and with more likely to follow, I believe the only right course of action is to remove them as a moderator to help restore the community's trust in the platform and reduce the likelihood of similar events in the future.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 51 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

What the fuck is "vegan cat food"? I sometimes can't understand people.

Ok. I get it. As people, we are bad. We mass husbandry just for food, modifying them with artificial selection for productivity. So I can understand veganism (although I am not vegan).

But have we really reached the point where we stop animals from eating meat? Either I'm a bigoted idiot or people are out of their minds.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nobody is suggesting to stop animals in the wild eating meat or for incidental kills our furry companions make. Animals eat meat. It's natural. We breed animals as pets and feed them industrial amounts of food each year that we produce from other animals in very questionable ways. Not natural. The entire planet benefits from less meat being mass produced. It's not crazy to entertain some ideas that get us closer if they're proven equally nutritional.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Then we should be against pets too. If we are not okay to breeding animals, we should also discuss pets too. That's not natural either.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

I'm not against befriending animals but breeding animals is shit.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Hey, check it out! I was right in thinking that the studies indicating good outcomes for the pets were poorly structured.

We found that there has been limited scientific study on the impact of vegan diets on cat and dog health. In addition, the studies that have been conducted tended to employ small sample sizes, with study designs which are considered less reliable in evidence-based practice. Whilst there have been several survey studies with larger sample sizes, these types of studies can be subject to selection bias based on the disposition of the respondents towards alternative diets

There aren’t studies saying that it is dangerous for the pets, which is a little surprising to me. Long story short the jury’s still out. But IMO it is completely fine for the admins of an instance to come down firmly against potentially animal-abusive practices, just as they would against political misinformation or nonconsensual pornography or what have you, regardless of how much in favor of those things are the members of the community promoting it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

While the study is not conclusive, that does not mean it is not a significant and useful piece of evidence. Conducted fairly and with acknowledgement of its flaws, it should be taken into account over the use of a simple classification system describing animals in their natural habitats.

I disagree that the admins should be fine coming down on anything they perceive as potentially abusive practices, as I think that sets a bad overall precedent.

Science is a continuously evolving thing, by design, and there is nothing wrong with using the best information that we have available at any given time.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago (11 children)

I think it’s funny that the vegan mods in question pivoted effortlessly from “this is our place, fuck you, you are banned, we’ll decide what is and isn’t allowed” to “halp halp they’re censoring me, what about my human rights, you can’t do this”

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think it's funny they thought they could censor an admin. I fully support Rooki on this.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

100%

That's the funniest part to me. Rooki was extremely evenhanded about it.

They posted misinformation, ~~Rooki left it up posted a counterpoint. They banned Rooki, Rooki didn't ban them in return, just restored the counterpoint and removed their ability to ban.~~ At no point were any of their free speech rights interfered with in ~~any~~ (edit: any unreasonable) way, and now they're all butthurt that they are no longer able to censor the admins on their own instance, in service of promoting animal abuse.

Good luck guys. Like I say I would look at it as a learning experience about how the world works.

(Edit: I had my chronology wrong. Rooki wasn't the author of the initial vegan-cat-debunking comments that the !vegan mods deleted that sparked the whole thing off)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Internet drama is nothing new. Personally I'm most interested in the accurate understanding and application of science principles along with general harm reduction, not people engaging in potential hypocrisy or pwning some vegans.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What's inconsistent about that? Communities have their own rules, which often are and should be much stricter than the sitewide rules. For example, a pro-Harris community may decide to ban pro-Trump posts (or vice versa) to keep it on-topic, but that wouldn't justify a site admin removing the mods and their comments for that. Some communities exist specifically for debates, while others choose to be more of a safe space type.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes, and instances have their own overriding sitewide rules. Some instances exist specifically for misinformation or the encouragement of reprehensible behavior, or at least advertise themselves as a safe space for it, and some don’t.

It’s also relevant that (edit: ~~Rooki’s~~ I was wrong) the community's first reaction was the kind of reasoned discussion that some people are now saying should be the answer (as opposed to this heavy handed censorship), and then only after (edit: ~~Rooki’s~~) reasoned discussion was deleted and they were banned, did they shrug their shoulders and say well if just hitting the “fuck you” button is within bounds then I’ve got one of those buttons too.

I think it can be written down as a useful learning experience for the vegan club about how the world works, if they decide to learn from it.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Hi all,

For the sake of transparency, we are responding here, as remaining silent will also send a message to the community. We are actively reviewing all the information posted in this thread and all other linked sources. The entire team is being brought up to speed on the events that have taken place, but this process may take some time. We are all in different time zones, and many of us have professional and personal obligations that may take priority. Please bear with us, as there is a lot to review. We promise that after our review, we will respond to the community.

Thank you.

The FHF / LW Admin Team

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Any updates or this more of a week to month wait?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Looking at the modlog, Rooki reinstated the two !vegan moderators and restored one of the mods' comments about an hour ago. Rooki also edited their own comment referenced in the OP to say the following:

Edit: I am sorry, about my emotional decision i reinstated @Eevoltic and @[email protected] as mods After researching myself, many sites say its not healthy, one (1) research paper says it is at least NOT unhealthy, but it has few points of data.

Personally, I'm not fully satisfied if that is the end of it. The changes look like Rooki admitting that the issue is not clear-cut, but Rooki's conduct as a moderator has to reflect the rules, not something as arbitrary as Rooki's level of disagreement with someone's views at the given time.

Nobody should have to convince Rooki that something is not misinformation. Rooki (or any other instance moderator) must not even think of interfering on that basis. The word "misinformation" is not in the rules in any shape or form, and the only thing remotely close to it is Lemmy.World accepting that "The content provided on Lemmy.World is not necessarily factually true". If anything, the rules side more with the community moderators' judgement by saying "Your participation in individual communities will only be acceptable on the condition that you abide by their rules."

Edit: Added more to the sentence on Lemmy.World's rule related to misinformation.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I love how this comment is how I find out what's happened

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

In the absence of announcements, my understanding is that it's highly unlikely that Rooki will be removed for the misconduct.

Firstly, it doesn't take a team of two admins and seven moderators nearly a week to investigate a matter involving a handful of comments and six users. Secondly, if it were a broader investigation into Rooki's overall conduct, you'd expect Rooki to at least be asked to pause their moderator activity for the duration, but Rooki continues to ban people and remove comments.

Ironically, one of the users banned by Rooki for trolling today is EndlessApollo, whose comment and subsequent ban by !vegan launched the whole chain of events.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Is this all over a disagreement on whether a cat can survive on a vegan diet?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You’re not fully representing the situation. They banned vegans moderators from their own community based on their disagreement with scientific fact.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I'm just here for the comments.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

What the hell. There's just a disagreement, no need to use admin override powers. Just let it be. Let them have their sub. It's not like they're recruiting for Al Qaeda.

I really don't give a damn about this particular fight about cat food. But I do worry about admins or mods who can't sometimes just let something slide. Like cops always looking to escalate

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

I fully support an admin stepping in to stop poorly researched pseudo science with an aura of fake legitimacy to be spread on Lemmy as a whole although I don't use (dot)World I still see your shit on my feed

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I haven’t looked into this (nor will I), but if the situation is as described, I support revoking mod access. Let’s not discuss veganism, pet food, or other off-topic issues. The discussion is about mod behavior on Lemmy. If anyone wants to check user Rose’s claims and show up with receipts, that’d be appreciated, I think, by all.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

This seems to be a situation where an instance admin (not a community moderator) stepped into a community ([email protected]), removed a bunch of "disinformation" comments, and de-modded some moderators who were letting the "disinformation" by. At issue was whether it is safe to feed cats a vegan diet. I did have to look into veganism and pet food to make sense of that. If there is universal agreement among scientists, veterinarians, and non-crazy vegans that any cat put on a vegan diet dies within 3 months, that's one thing, but the actual situation doesn't seem that severe. Rooki also seems to use non-standard terminology and incomplete descriptions in communicating their side of the issue.

Wikipedia's obligate carnivore section says (emphasis added):

Obligate or "true" carnivores are those whose diet requires nutrients found only in animal flesh in the wild... All wild felids, including feral domestic cats, require a diet of primarily animal flesh and organs... In captivity or domestic settings, obligate carnivores like cats and crocodiles can in principle get all their required nutrients from processed food made from plant and synthetic sources.[4][5]

Reference 4 above is a Guardian article titled Cats may get health benefits from vegan diet, study suggests and subtitled "Owners who fed their pet a plant-based diet reported fewer visits to the vet and less medication use".

Rooki uses the term "obligatory carnivore" (instead of the usual "obligate") and omits that the definition describes the diet only of wild animals, not captive ones. So Rooki's familiarity with this topic seems limited, and yet they use their admin flag to shut down discussion doesn't fit their opinion. Wikipedia's eponym for this type of participant is "Randy in Boise."

If this were a dispute between !vegan mods then that would be regular mod drama, but this seems to be from outside the community, not good. While Reddit often has bad moderators on large subs, one of its attractions to many users is unless you're discussing criminal or near-criminal conduct, you can generally start your own sub and moderate it however you want, with the admins staying out of your hair. The times they banned some subs that didn't reach that level created significant controversy even by non-supporters of those subs. If Lemmy is trying to present itself as an attractive alternative to Reddit, it should also take a light hand with internal community matters.

Overall I think it is best that instance admins stop interfering with discussions inside communities, unless there are serious conflicts with site policy. Could we imagine lemmy.world defederating another instance because its vegan community had a comment subthread about feeding a plant diet to your cat? Maybe so, but that doesn't speak well of lemmy.world, imho. Alternatively, if such discussions get shut down on lemmy.world but wouldn't get a different instance defederated, then lemmy.world stops being the "generic Lemmy server for everyone to use" that it advertises itself as. So it should leave those discussions alone, both on the local instance and on remote ones.

I won't weigh in on the request for Rooki's removal but I'd want Rooki and other admins to step away from this type of action, and I'd want the site poilcy (written or unwritten) to generally embrace this non-interference principle.

WP:UNINVOLVED is an internal Wikipedia policy about admin actions and as such, doesn't directly apply here, but it is something to consider in deciding how best to handle these issues.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (16 children)

Make a community on a instance that doesn't metamoderate. You might have to start your own instance.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›