There are more studies than just one on the topic.
Comment on Asking for moderator Rooki's removal for misconduct
Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 weeks agoWhile the study is not conclusive, that does not mean it is not a significant and useful piece of evidence. Conducted fairly and with acknowledgement of its flaws, it should be taken into account over the use of a simple classification system describing animals in their natural habitats.
I disagree that the admins should be fine coming down on anything they perceive as potentially abusive practices, as I think that sets a bad overall precedent.
Science is a continuously evolving thing, by design, and there is nothing wrong with using the best information that we have available at any given time.
Beaver@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 weeks ago
I think it’s funny that the vegan mods in question pivoted effortlessly from “this is our place, fuck you, you are banned, we’ll decide what is and isn’t allowed” to “halp halp they’re censoring me, what about my human rights, you can’t do this”
breetai@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I think it’s funny they thought they could censor an admin. I fully support Rooki on this.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 weeks ago
100%
That's the funniest part to me. Rooki was extremely evenhanded about it.
They posted misinformation, Rooki left it up but 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 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.
breetai@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Some mods want echo chambers with false information.
I don’t want a “truth” monitor but sometimes it needs to be done.
Rose@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
What’s inconsistent about that? Communities have their own rules, which often are and should be much stricter than the sitewide rules. For example, a pro-Harris community may decide to ban pro-Trump posts (or vice versa) to keep it on-topic, but that wouldn’t justify a site admin removing the mods and their comments for that. Some communities exist specifically for debates, while others choose to be more of a safe space type.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 weeks ago
Yes, and instances have their own overriding sitewide rules. Some instances exist specifically for misinformation or the encouragement of reprehensible behavior, or at least advertise themselves as a safe space for it, and some don’t.
Beaver@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
It is a vegan community, that is where vegan views should flourish. A non-vegan admin stepped in and trampled on our free speech.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 weeks ago
I’m gonna start a community which is devoted to kidnapping vegans and feeding them an all-meat diet and cite some dodgy studies about how that type of diet actually leads to better health outcomes for them as self-reported by other enthusiasts within the vegan kidnapping enthusiast community
Beaver@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Let me guess you have some kind of investment into animal agriculture. As you willing to troll and make threats.
EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Free speech means the government doesn’t censor you, not that you get to spread harmful disinformation without consequence in a community and instance where it’s against the rules
freeman@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
No that’s the 2nd amendment of the US constitution which only protects free speech from the US government. That it is legal for private actors to censor does not mean that free speech is not being censored.
Its so irrelevant as .world is not a US website.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Internet drama is nothing new. Personally I’m most interested in the accurate understanding and application of science principles along with general harm reduction, not people engaging in potential hypocrisy or pwning some vegans.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
This behavior is a core flavor of Lemmy
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 weeks ago
Yep
More common, I think, than someone saying “well I opened the door to it by trying to ban them first, it’s only fair that I have to find a new instance now, that was a valuable lesson and now I understand better how it probably felt on the receiving end of the bans I was happily handing out before”