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
Vegans and pets are something different. Most vegans do not buy pets. Vegans almost exclusively adopt them.
It’s also not really “forcing”. You are trying out a new diet and closely monitoring whether they like it and if they are healthy. There are vegan pet food brands that contain all the required nutrients. It even smells like non vegan pet food. It’s actual research that went into this.
You can hate on all the stupid vegans that would force pets to eat salad while being malnourished and when they put their believes before the needs of the cat. But that goes against the common vegan saying: “as far as is possible and practicable”. It’s also the reason why these topics are discussed among vegans, to learn what is possible and what isn’t.
I think many people forget that vegans do care about animals, and often try to point out some possible hypocrisy when they are in fact the biggest hypocrites.
I hope some people will understand. In this modern age we can even deliver all the required nutrients to people trough IV. We’re much more advanced than this stupid cavemen mentality.
Anyways, thanks for reading. Yes I am vegan. I’ll probably get downvoted but that’s fine.
Ignoring the rest of the post, if you control 100% of what a cat eats and then change what that cat may and must eat, that is 100% forcing something.
You do realize that giving them regular pet feed would fall under that as well?
Yes; I never said anything to the contrary.
Yes, but my pet feed is backed by science to give them what science has said they need and mimics nutrients they would get naturally. It’s not drastically changing the type of diet they would have.
So is vegan feed? You keep talking as if vegan pet feed is not as good. But it is.
It isn’t because they are still getting the nutrients they need.
It’s funny because if you think about it, kibble would have gotten the same responses as you’re giving back when it was introduced: “What?! Dog kibble??? ARE YOU CRAZY???”. Did you know common kibble is almost completely plant based? It’s often filled with rice and veggies.
The only reason to not give vegan pet feed is because it tends to be more expensive. Or if somebody doesn’t have the time to monitor the health of their pet, which means they shouldn’t really be having a pet anyways.
Yet, you fail to realise that cats are natural predators. They will often hunt and eat their prey. What are you going to do about that? And there’s a reason nobody follows a diet of multi vitamins and IV fluid. It’s not healthy in the long term.
Lmao. They can still do that though?
It’s not like when you give them vegan pet feed you don’t allow them to go outside anymore…
Very weird take you got there.
Not to mention cats don’t even hunt, except for some birds and mice that they don’t eat.
Wait so what’s the point in feeding vegan if your cat goes out and kills mice/birds.
My point is that “forcing” is a stupid word.
It’s the same as “forcing” pet feed to your pet.
Yeah but I’m still honestly curious about my question. No sarcasm or snark, honest question.
The difference is that you as the owner are in that case not actively financing an industry that’s slaughtering other animals in order to feed your pet.
That a cat while roaming outside will inevitably kill other animals is not unethical on the cats part. It’s debatable if it’s unethical on the owners part, which is why many people nowadays discuss only keeping cats as indoor pets anyway. It is however a completely separate issue to vegan cat food.
Maybe you think vegans ask for vegan pet food because they want their cat to “be vegan”? Because if so, that’s a misunderstanding. Vegan ethics are always about our own consumption decisions and behavior. Never about those of animals. (Which is why “dO yOu JuDgE LiOnS fOr KiLliNg ZeBrAs As WeLl?” is never a good argument. We don’t.) As caretakers for our pets some of their decisions naturally fall to us. You’re always deciding for them which brand of pet food your cat will get. For example I avoid nestle owned brands, wether my cat supports that decision or not. If he was an outside pet I’m sure he would at least try to murder something occasionally. That has nothing to do with my responsibility to honor the ramifications of my own ethical considerations though. My cat is too dumb for that - literally. It doesn’t release me from the responsibility.
(He gets meat btw, he has chronic digestive problems and needs special food anyway - before anyone here accuses me of murder and torture or something.)
Stay away from my pets.
Pretty reasonable response. This actually made me change my mind up to the possibility of feeding cats a vegan diet from being unacceptable to being an acceptable practice. It’s not one I’m willing to practice on my cats, but I will reserve any judgment when I hear of others practicing it in the wild.
Talk to a vet before even thinking about trying this.
I am a vet and unless you have the diet formulated by a veterinary nutritionist and then follow it TO THE LETTER, trying to feed a cat a vegan diet is abuse.
I wouldn’t try this ever, myself. I just am going to stop judging others for trying it, unless I know it is causing their pet harm.
And this is why misinformation should never be allowed in public platforms.
Cats are going to die in agony because the mods folded and gave the lunatics free reign to spread their nonsense and convince gullible people.
Between this and the far right disinformation bot at this point the only reasonable solution is for other instances to defeferate lemmy.world to quarantine the infection.
I didn’t say I was going to try it, myself. I’m fine with my cats being carnivores. I just am going to hold back judgment of others who try it.