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.

  • mozz
    link
    fedilink
    7
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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)

    • @breetai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      34 months ago

      Some mods want echo chambers with false information.

      I don’t want a “truth” monitor but sometimes it needs to be done.

      • mozz
        link
        fedilink
        84 months ago

        It is different when real imminent harm to real organisms in the actual real world is involved

        If someone is posting that crystals will cure your cancer, or you can feed your baby honey to build its immune system, or vegan cat food is safe, it is a good admin’s job to curtail your free speech rights unless you can demonstrate pretty convincingly that you are not the wrong one (with more than “I KNOW bro, I’m vegan, so that means I’m right and stfu”).

        And doubly, triply, so if you are actively censoring people who are trying to debunk your misinformation through exercise of their own free speech.