Hey all,
In light of recent events concerning one of our communities (/c/vegan), we (as a team) have spent the last week working on how to address better some concerns that had arisen between the moderators of that community and the site admin team. We always strive to find a balance between the free expression of communities hosted here and protecting users from potentially harmful content.
We as a team try to stick to a general rule of respect and consideration for the physical and mental well-being of our users when drafting new rules and revising existing ones. Furthermore, we’ve done our best to try to codify these core beliefs into the additions to the ToS and a new by-laws section.
ToS Additions
That being said, we will be adding a new section to our “terms of service” concerning misinformation. While we do try to be as exact as reasonably able, we also understand that rules can be up to interpretation as well. This is a living document, and users are free to respectfully disagree. We as site admins will do our best to consider the recommendations of all users regarding potentially revising any rules.
Regarding misinformation, we’ve tried our best to capture these main ideas, which we believe are very reasonable:
- Users are encouraged to post information they believe is true and helpful.
- We recommend users conduct thorough research using reputable scientific sources.
- When in doubt, a policy of “Do No Harm”, based on the Hippocratic Oath, is a good compass on what is okay to post.
- Health-related information should ideally be from peer-reviewed, reproducible scientific studies.
- Single studies may be valid, but often provide inadequate sample sizes for health-related advice.
- Non-peer-reviewed studies by individuals are not considered safe for health matters.
We reserve the right to remove information that could cause imminent physical harm to any living being. This includes topics like conversion therapy, unhealthy diets, and dangerous medical procedures. Information that could result in imminent physical harm to property or other living beings may also be removed.
We know some folks who are free speech absolutists may disagree with this stance, but we need to look out for both the individuals who use this site and for the site itself.
By-laws Addition
We’ve also added a new by-laws section as well as a result of this incident. This new section is to better codify the course of action that should be taken by site and community moderators when resolving conflict on the site, and also how to deal with dormant communities.
This new section provides also provides a course of action for resolving conflict with site admin staff, should it arise. We want both the users and moderators here to feel like they have a voice that is heard, and essentially a contact point that they can feel safe going to, to “talk to the manager” type situation, more or less a new Lemmy.World HR department that we’ve created as a result of what has happened over the last week.
Please feel free to raise any questions in this thread. We encourage everyone to please take the time to read over these new additions detailing YOUR rights and how we hope to better protect everyone here.
https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/#80-misinformation
https://legal.lemmy.world/bylaws/
Sincerely,
FHF / LemmyWorld Operations Team
EDIT:
We will be releasing a separate post regarding the moderation incident in the next 24-48 hours, just getting final approval from the team.
Lmao all this over meat eaters getting mad at vegan cat food? I’m genuinely impressed that redditors are managing to turn Lemmy into a caricature of the godawful website they left.
GG
Users from .ml are in no position to criticize the admins of any other instance.
Ad hominem arguments are never good
Say what you like but I can actually access communities like !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com and the few Lemmy.world boards I was using before I moved.
I moved after he first piracy purge, but I didn’t go to .ml because it’s run by tankies.
there is most certainly some level of ethical behavior to follow in this line, theoretically if the being is getting all of the nutrition they need and isn’t struggling to survive in that sense, it really shouldn’t matter, but at the end of the day, i guess it starts to come back to the ethics behind pet ownership more than anything.
IDK to me it seems like feeding a carnivore a wholly vegan diet is probably ethically dubious at best. Most vegans would probably agree here, ironically. Feeding livestock a generic grain mix is probably not the most ethical decision.
I have no context to the thread that caused this struggle session but as a vegan and someone who knows for a fact people will take that shit out of context anyway I know that most vegans will either not have pets, or if they do don’t go as far as to malnourish it.
Most vegans interested in a “vegan cat food” are purely seeing a bunch of tinned/pouch food that claims to be nutritionally complete. I know that for some here the assumption is that vegans are trying to force feed Mr fluffles a carrot and kale soup.
As for whether that food is nutritionally complete depends on the animal, the brand, the testing, and the regulations. Turns out there’s a lot less rigor in ensuring foods are safe for animal consumption compared to humans!
The takeaway overall, imho, is that this is one of those times where having an “/R/all” frontpage makes for a great opportunity for a pile on, followed by mod overreach, and then a weird ass ToS change that’s more to spite a few people than to do any good.
yeah neither do i, to be clear i was mostly talking about the moral and ethical implications of it, rather than the scientific and real world impacts of it.
I think people sometimes forget to think about morality when it comes to things like this, it’s a useful litmus test for figuring out what seems to be the right answer amongst all the chaos. Though it’s not a guarantee so you shouldn’t follow it with impunity either.