[-] Rose@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago

If you're talking about the upvotes and the supportive comments, I'm not even sure they reflect how the community would feel had they seen the full sequence of events* leading up to that decision.

As I previously mentioned, seemingly the first comment to start the chain of !vegan moderators' and subsequent Rooki actions was the impolite "don't force your shit on them" one-line comment by a user first exonerated, but later banned for trolling in another community by none other than Rooki.

The vegan comments were way lengthier, containing balanced ("it's important to do a bit of extra research", "cat nutrition is too complicated to be trying to make at home") and seemingly thoughtful takes with a link to the NCBI.

Conversely, Rooki's line of arguing contained little but outbursts like "have a nice rest of your life knowing you killed your loved pet" and "If anyone else thinks pets should be vegan i have no problem banning them for being a troll and promoting killing pets", with unsubstantiated yet specific claims like "YES cats can survive vegan diet for few months".

Sure, Rooki admitted to being emotional and said sorry after my post asking for their removal, but what's the weight of that apology if the new rules echo those same talking points, from "misinformation" to the quite specific example "Unhealthy diets, e.g. due to insufficient nutrients"?

*Screenshots sent to me by a !vegan mod after my post - verifiable via the public modlog.

[-] Rose@lemmy.world 54 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] Rose@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

Meanwhile Lemmy.World moderator Rooki:

To be honest linking something like meat to death of people is like saying everybody that breathed air died.

correlation != causation

(comment source, thread archive)

32
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Rose@lemmy.world to c/vegan@lemmy.world

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18829828

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.

29
submitted 2 months ago by Rose@lemmy.world to c/support@lemmy.world

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.

389
submitted 2 months ago by Rose@lemmy.world to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz

There's also this Ukrainian report on the matter but it's in Ukrainian, so I'm sharing the Mastodon post in English.

135
submitted 2 months ago by Rose@lemmy.world to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz

This is the first official statement of the Ukrainian government regarding the offensive in Kursk Oblast in Russia.

6
submitted 3 months ago by Rose@lemmy.world to c/fortnite@sh.itjust.works
37
submitted 3 months ago by Rose@lemmy.world to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz
49
Botting be like (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by Rose@lemmy.world to c/canvas@toast.ooo

The rectangle was placed by piXelBow@toast.ooo, with the pixel times sometimes matching to the millisecond.

[-] Rose@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago

Its Russian founder recently praised Musk in an interview for Tucker Carlson.

1
submitted 7 months ago by Rose@lemmy.world to c/fortnite@sh.itjust.works
61
submitted 8 months ago by Rose@lemmy.world to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz
55
submitted 9 months ago by Rose@lemmy.world to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz
[-] Rose@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago

Worse than merely being homophobic, as he financially supported politicians and causes that worked to prevent equal rights.

20
submitted 10 months ago by Rose@lemmy.world to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz

The Insider’s Simon Ostrovsky gets to the bottom of what Russia’s deteriorating relationship with Israel could mean for the war in Ukraine as well as its position in the Middle East.

170
[-] Rose@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

Sure, but Valve essentially reserve the right to no longer sell your game if it's offered cheaper elsewhere. See the quotes on pages 54 through 56 of the complaint.

[-] Rose@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

You don't have to be a researcher to understand that. Just don't be Elon Musk.

[-] Rose@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

His grandfather J. N. Haldeman was a staunch anti-Communist from Canada who in the nineteen-thirties and forties had been a leader of the anti-democratic and quasi-fascist Technocracy movement. (Technocrats believed that scientists and engineers should rule.) “In 1950, he decided to move to South Africa,” Isaacson writes, “which was still ruled by a white apartheid regime.” In fact, apartheid had been declared only in 1948, and the regime was soon recruiting white settlers from North America, promising restless men such as Haldeman that they could live like princes. Isaacson calls Haldeman’s politics “quirky.” In 1960, Haldeman self-published a tract, “The International Conspiracy to Establish a World Dictatorship & the Menace to South Africa,” that blamed the two World Wars on the machinations of Jewish financiers.

[-] Rose@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Look up the paradox of tolerance.

[-] Rose@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

The website is run by an employee of Brave, but if you look past the order, even by their criteria Mullvad is ahead.

[-] Rose@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thanks. Whenever I raised the issue of homophobia or his general support of right-wing causes that threaten people's privacy (see the aftermath of Roe v. Wade for example), I got downvoted, be it on the PrivacyGuides sub where they adore the browser, or right here just weeks ago.

view more: next ›

Rose

joined 1 year ago