Update to Terms of Service + New Bylaws (Protections for users)

Oh man this ones got some flavour to sink ones teeth into 😅

I take the side of the admin. If someone can't accept or understand that a cat eats a meat based diet then they deserve to have reality thrown in their face. Better than some poor animals being tortured.

Respectfully, I believe this incident serves more as a learning opportunity for the admin team rather than a reason to amend the rules.

This isn’t the first time I’ve observed Rooki acting inappropriately for an admin of a community. As an admin of a (admittedly much smaller) corner of the internet, I’ve learned to interact with users in a way that is polite and ensures they feel safe and heard. This is at least the second instance where I’ve seen Rooki respond emotionally and rather adversarially towards users, which has, in my view, undermined their credibility, to the point that I hope to avoid future interactions with them.

I understand that managing LW, one of the largest and general-purpose instances, especially with Lemmy’s still rather limited moderation tools, is challenging, and I appreciate the hard work all of you, including Rooki, put into maintaining it and making it run as smoothly as it does. I'm NOT asking for their removal; however, considering that this is not the first time I’ve seen Rooki behave uncivilly and antagonistically towards users, I hope that this will be a formative experience for them.

(Edit for clarity)

It's great that the admins are putting so much effort into getting this right.

Sadly, I don't think this is the way. Adding this to the ToS means you admins will always be in the centre of every unwinnable situation that arises.

You need a committee to deal with these issues on a case by case basis. There are many advantages to this:

• You can be tough but flexible and adaptive
• you can enlist the help of people with more time
• you can enlist the help of people with experience writing policies
• committee members can resign or be discontinued when they become embroiled in some shit storm.
• you can retain veto power

I don't want to be critical of the ToS because someone has put a lot of thought into it, but the most charitable thing I can say is that its unlikely to serve its intended purpose.

Walk into a vet office and tell them you want your cat to eat a vegan diet and watch their eyes roll at the speed of sound out of their skull

As a former site admin, I will say right now that leaving any kind of rule "open to interpretation" is the WORST thing you could do. The only interpretation of the rules of your site should be the your (the site admin's) interpretation. That's it. Rules should be easy to understand and easily convey the correct interpretation.

Leaving the rules open to interpretation only leads to disagreements and arguments. It is better for users to have concrete rules with a reliably consistent correct interpretation than for everyone to complain because their interpretation of a rule lets them do whatever they want. Just my two cents on that.

The biggest issue with Reddit and Facebook was that they let stuff like this stick around it and eventually consume it.

It's a good policy imho, and I'm happy to see it

Science should prevail

Any chance the relevant incident could be unpacked and used as a demonstration of how these changes would alter the outcome or encourage a different outcome?

As someone who only saw pieces of it after the fact, I am potentially in the dark here about the purposes and context of these changes.

That being said, from what I did see, it seemed very much like an instance admin imposing themselves and their superior power on a community when there were probably plenty of other more subtle action that could have been taken, where subtlety becomes vital for any issue complex and nuanced enough to be handled remotely well. I'm not sure I'm seeing any awareness of this in this post and the links provided.

For instance, AFAICT, the "incident" involved a discussion of if or how a domestic cat could eat a vegan diet. Obviously that's not trivial as they, like humans, have some necessary nutrients, and AFAICT the vegans involved were talking about how it could be done, while the admin involved was basically having none of that and removed content on the basis that it would lead to a cat dying.

And then in the misinformation link we have:

We also reserve the right to remove any sufficiently scientifically proven MALICIOUS information posted which a user may follow, which would result in either IMMINENT PHYSICAL harm to an INDIVIDUALS PROPERTY, the PROPERTY of OTHERS or OTHER LIVING BEINGS.

In the context of cats and their food ... which "living beings" are being harmed and who is encouraging or discouraging this harm?

Whether you're vegan or not, this seems to me formally ambiguous and on the face of it only enshrines the source of the conflict rather than facilitating better forms of communication or resolution (perhaps there are things in the by-laws I've missed??).

Two groups can have exactly the same aim and core values (reduce harm to living beings) but in the complexity of the issue come to issue a bunch of friendly fire ... that's how complex issues work.

So, back to my original question ... how exactly would things be done better?

As noted in my post on the "moderation incident", by adding more subjectivity to the rules, you are opening the door to even more instance moderator misconduct. There is already evidence of how that would go.

Rooki felt it right to intervene in the !vegan cat food thread (and got a pat on the back with the new rules made to justify their actions), then not only took no issue with comments like "Meat is not something diabetics need to worry about." but also fueled the fire in the same thread by saying "To be honest linking something like meat to death of people is like saying everybody that breathed air died."

So much for taking action against harmful dietary advice.

While I disagree with the stance the vegans took in this. The mods admins reaction to the situation was way out of proportion, and it definitely seems like you're updating the ToS to justify what he did retroactively instead of addressing his behavior, which was way out of line.

Don't feel there are many people who actually use the phrase "free speech absolutist" these days, as a forward self-identification, who have much personal integrity or actual understanding of what that phrase might mean.

I didn't consider admins any more qualified in parsing medical journals than mods are. I've got letters behind my name and am not supremely confident in that. That said, anything like a pro-ana community should be quickly purged.

I've got no idea about the context of the vegan drama though.

Peer reviewed scientific sources for people talking about health stuff? I can understand modding out "cyanide makes everything taste yummy" but at the other side, this isn't Wikipedia. It's a discussion forum and a lot of the topics will be about users' own experiences and perceptions. If you want to run an academic journal instead, this isn't the right way to do it.

The parent post also offers no answer at all about what decision was reached regarding the c/vegan intervention and whether such things should be allowed to happen again. Is there any update about that?

I’m glad to see site-wide action taken against the spread of harmful disinformation.

It's not the same thing, but IMO the best things the admins can do is establish a runbook of sorts of how to deal with these situations - because they're not out of the realms of possibility.

Where I disagree with some is in the rules needing to be black and white. There are instances, say for example a self-harming support group or a community that deals with conditions with no medical cure. IMO this is where nuance is key, because people will share misinformation or procedures that could cause harm/illness. This is where a case by case basis is needed, and ultimately the "path of least harm" is where this will excel. Regardless, admins and mods should contribute to these runbooks for their case, so that there is an established plan that is transparent to all.

And now the incident's "debate" is here.

Thank you all for doing this.

This is a bit learning the wrong lesson from what happened, isn't it? The problem is admin overreach. There was some disagreement on a sub, no big deal. I don't even care what it's about, I have no opinion on it. But now this admin comes in like Eric Cartman "Respect mah authoritah!". What am I supposed to make of that? Nobody was advocating animal abuse. I worry about admins who can't just let something go, who can't handle disagreement, like a cop always looking to escalate.

So thanks for the rules clarification, I guess, but what about:

• won't this general guideline of 'do no harm' stifle discussion in case it isn't clear which is the harmful position? For example covid
• is there a process in place when an admin does something in the heat of the moment, that the admin team can let them cool off for a bit?
• is removing mods going to be the norm?
• will there be more rules when another admin disagrees with a mod?
• why was this escalated like this? Don't you think removing mod status is an overreaction (procedure wise)?
• does the 'anti animal abuse' statute apply to animal consumption and animal products? Vegan community has a point there
• what about rooki?

All in all, please don't kill this instance by telling people what to think. There is healthy discussion and people don't always have to agree. That doesn't make me a 'free speech absolutist'. I think removing moderator privileges was quite out of bounds. Again, nobody was advocating animal abuse at all.

Mods and admins are here to keep discussion healthy, not impose their views on everyone else, right? So don't! And don't cover for others who do!

What a mess. Thank you mods and admins for doing the work.

I'm not vegan so I won't take sides in this particular debate (to me it seems like a trolley problem whether risking the harm of a pet is worth reducing the systematic harm of animals at-large), nor do I have any specific comments on the new rules...

I will say though, that these incidents are opportunity for growth and learning for both users and admins when it comes to running a grassroots online community. Whether people agree with the new rules or not, I think all of Lemmy is better for it if we have examples of how large instances can be run and how conflicts can be addressed cordially.

Not my instance, but after perusing those links, what's the point? "Generally" this, "generally" that, paired with vague obligations. Doesn't matter a bit if you have an actual problem with a member of the administration time and the rest buddy up and play silent.

Let me ask you this, you've been up for quite a while, you've had staff rollovers, you must have had issues with at least one of your admins. Have you been transparent about them and reached out to anyone who might have been affected by them and publicly apologized and addressed any actions on their behalf, or have you played coy and just ignored them and kept quiet about them, releasing at best only excuses that have kept any internal drama hidden lest they affect the donation/income streams?

Not really launching any accusations, but actions speak louder than words. Look at Reddit, it has a decent community guideline, and it means shit except whitewashing when it comes to actual enforcement.

Users are encouraged to post information they believe is true and helpful.

Even in shitpost/meme communities?

I understand this intended mainly toward health and news communities but as a site rule there might need an exception for other type of communities.

There's a fine line between misinformation and "subjectively offensive information". To me, this seems like it was a pretty clear case of abuse of power regardless of where you stand on the original issue and retroactively changing the rules to excuse that abuse does not bode well for this community.

Can someone explain to me the context behind the incident that caused this? I am entirely out of the loop.

Oh my drama.

I just want to say thank you, and I appreciate the team's efforts to be excellent to each other.

This is why I left .world in the first place, and that was even when their censorship was understandable. That’s the beauty of Lemmy.

Don't these rules make communities about BBQ or cooking meat in general against the rules? BBQ does put "any living being in imminent danger".

Internet has brought so many new social issues and yet no philosophers to ponder and find good solutions even though no one is working.

Strange

Cats need a meat

Lol

Simply put Sounds like mods power tripping and you are trying to overlook that fact, disgusting honestly

This is so dumb of course it's a controversy about veganism. It's so obvious that no imminent harm is coming from a community literally founded on the idea of reducing suffering. Probably switching instances sometimes soon

"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."

Does this mean it's against the rules to promote keto, paleo, and carnivore diets? All of these cause a great deal of harm.

removed

lookin gauche

Of course it was the vegans.

So there was a hostile takeover of the vegan community and you've learned the wrong lesson and updated the rules to make this ok? Get over yourselves. Stop defending flagrant abuse of power.

Health-related information should ideally be from peer-reviewed, reproducible scientific studies.

Note that even if a study is currently reproducible, it will only continue to be reproducible until it isn't. There isn't something fundamental that makes a specific scientific study objectively true or false — that isn't how science works.

When in doubt, a policy of “Do No Harm”, based on the Hippocratic Oath, is a good compass on what is okay to post.

I understand that that's likely well-intentioned, but, imo, it's rather subjective — it's more often a matter of relative perspective. That being said, it would be in your best interest to set as clear and precise definitions as you possibly can.

Non-peer-reviewed studies by individuals are not considered safe for health matters.

What does this statement mean? You are banning anyone from sharing anything that is not peer-reviewed…?

We know some folks who are free speech absolutists may disagree with this stance

That's a bit of a stretch.

I love the strong emotional takes on what is animal abuse from all the meat eaters in here.

My goodness.

Yeah well considering how the admins have been treating rogue mods, I have a hard time believing ANY of this is in good faith.

This doesn't sound like free speech is welcomed here.

Am I wrong?

This instance gave me many signs of this happening, where only what one group of people think MUST be followed, but this kind of cements that now.

Yep, this shit is part of why I gave up and went back to reddit. The extreme stances here are too fucking normal

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

People will go to any lengths to justify their bad behaviour to themselves.

All you need to do is not interfere in communities where you have no idea what you’re talking about, stop assuming you know better than everyone else just because you have some power over a meaningless message board. This isn’t an anti-vax community we’re talking about here and you’ve totally blown this way out of proportion to prevent admitting that the moderator was out of line.

You, the mod/admin exist to stop spam and hate speech and to empower users with tools and features that they want and find useful. Otherwise, just stay the fuck out of the way. Do not impose your will on your little petty fiefdoms, that is unwanted and unhelpful.

You're backing yourself into a corner where you'll have to respond to every shitbird that comes crying some content hurt their feelings. Removing illegal material is the only thing that's expected, moderating people's opinions because they might make someone put glue on pizza is solved by a "nothing on this instance should be considered a fact" banner. It seems petty and the optics only get worse as you slowly burn out and stop being consistent in censoring shit. Because that's what it is. A cat might not be too stoked with its carefully balanced plant-based slop, but it'd be alive. Hope you'll go into kink communities and censor the shit out of risky sexual practices.

I'm normally a Vegan hater but this is a whole new level. 👀

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.

And people pointing out the Democrats are complicit in Genocide apparently.

This rogue admin was absolutely not acting with the best intentions. Is he kicked out of the admin team?

He was abusing the term "misinformation" even though it was extremely obvious that he had a personal vendetta against vegans. A vegan pet diet is perfectly possible, and vegans were merely saying that. There was no question for a source by anybody, because the source is just a simply google search away.

This admin is just anti vegan and was on a personal vendetta. He saw an opportunity to classify it as misinformation, so he just started removing posts and banning people. Why was /c/Vegan specifically targeted by this person?

"Oh but this vegan diet for your pet might hurt it!!", bro you're literally the one paying others to slaughter living beings.