Update to Terms of Service + New Bylaws (Protections for users)
Update to Terms of Service + New Bylaws (Protections for users)
Hey all,
In light of recent events concerning one of our communities (/c/vegan), we (as a team) have spent the last week working on how to address better some concerns that had arisen between the moderators of that community and the site admin team. We always strive to find a balance between the free expression of communities hosted here and protecting users from potentially harmful content.
We as a team try to stick to a general rule of respect and consideration for the physical and mental well-being of our users when drafting new rules and revising existing ones. Furthermore, we've done our best to try to codify these core beliefs into the additions to the ToS and a new by-laws section.
ToS Additions
That being said, we will be adding a new section to our “terms of service” concerning misinformation. While we do try to be as exact as reasonably able, we also understand that rules can be up to interpretation as well. This is a living document, and users are free to respectfully disagree. We as site admins will do our best to consider the recommendations of all users regarding potentially revising any rules.
Regarding misinformation, we've tried our best to capture these main ideas, which we believe are very reasonable:
- Users are encouraged to post information they believe is true and helpful.
- We recommend users conduct thorough research using reputable scientific sources.
- When in doubt, a policy of “Do No Harm”, based on the Hippocratic Oath, is a good compass on what is okay to post.
- Health-related information should ideally be from peer-reviewed, reproducible scientific studies.
- Single studies may be valid, but often provide inadequate sample sizes for health-related advice.
- Non-peer-reviewed studies by individuals are not considered safe for health matters.
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.
We know some folks who are free speech absolutists may disagree with this stance, but we need to look out for both the individuals who use this site and for the site itself.
By-laws Addition
We've also added a new by-laws section as well as a result of this incident. This new section is to better codify the course of action that should be taken by site and community moderators when resolving conflict on the site, and also how to deal with dormant communities.
This new section provides also provides a course of action for resolving conflict with site admin staff, should it arise. We want both the users and moderators here to feel like they have a voice that is heard, and essentially a contact point that they can feel safe going to, to “talk to the manager” type situation, more or less a new Lemmy.World HR department that we've created as a result of what has happened over the last week.
Please feel free to raise any questions in this thread. We encourage everyone to please take the time to read over these new additions detailing YOUR rights and how we hope to better protect everyone here.
https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/#80-misinformation
https://legal.lemmy.world/bylaws/
Sincerely,
FHF / LemmyWorld Operations Team
EDIT:
We will be releasing a separate post regarding the moderation incident in the next 24-48 hours, just getting final approval from the team.
EDIT 2 (2024-08-31):
We've posted a response, sorry for the delay.
👉 https://lemmy.world/post/19264848 👈
You're viewing a single thread.
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
Because the priority for them is engagement, regardless of how harmful the content could be to people. Engagement doesn't mean shit here because nobody's profiting off of it.
I think initially it was simply because Ellen pao might have wanted freedom of speech. The funny thing is that the people she defended turned against her
But this turned into an issue eventually Steve seemed to get rid of some communities, and allowed places like thedonald to flourish. I believe he just wants money.
So you could be right
There's not much doubt left in me that spez wasn't at a wild party that resulted in him doing what the videographer wanted.
If you think lemmy.world is worthless then you are mistaken.
What?
Science should prevail
Pickles, will prevail
Pickles is a cat? If so, yes, Pickles will prevail. Those guys are ninjas at finding meat, i.e., songbirds.
It's from an It's Always Sunny episode:
Nice!
Yeah, the episode is actually a pretty good representation of the American political system...
Funny as hell, but depressing once you realize.
The science :
Considering these results overall, cats fed vegan diets tended to be healthier than cats fed meat-based diets. This trend was clear and consistent. These results largely concur with previous, similar studies. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132
Sure might not be the best science but still science
we surveyed 1,418 cat guardians, asking about one cat living with them, for at least one year.
I believe this study. It's true that vegans say their vegan cats are healthier than other cats.
quoting from your link: No reductions were statistically significant. Only one difference [re:disease] was statistically significant.
plus it was done by a pro-vegan group with obvious bias. so the results from the pro-vegan funded study are not terribly good at supporting veganism for cats as more healthy. it's about the same, maybe less disease (severity of disease wasn't covered in the abstract but would be a significant part of a decision). show me a study not funded by a pro-vegan group with similar or better results before I consider feeding my pet a diet very different from their natural diet.
Yeah like I said not the best science (maybe 99% of cats on vegan diet die the first day and the remaining 1% is slightly healthier).
But the point is that there is science
So are admins going to do literature reviews and have panels to discuss or just follow their own biases when deleting comments?
Do users need to publish a peer reviewed meta study before they are allowed to comment?
All studies on this will either be funded for or against it. You can't just claim bias cause you connected a pair of dots in your head.
The same logic would disqualify papers that support your opinion too, as they are funded by companies that make money from selling meat.
The only people who find studies are vegans or the meat industry.
Honestly (and I see you do recognise this in your comment) but this really seems like a kinda crappy study that I'm surprised made it into plos.
For instance I couldn't find any evidence of them considering that the dietary choices of the guardian may affect the attitudes of the guardian to vetenarians (and thus the self-reported health of those animals). To take this further, in the scenario that a cat guardian believes their choices make their cat healthier, especially when going against vetinary orthodoxy, the guardian is probably less likely to take the cat to the vet for minor issues. This confounds the analysis of "healthiness" as performed by the authors.
Furthermore any cat that is not an indoor cat is likely also not fed a purely vegan diet (as they do hunt), so they should possibly account for that via a sort of bootstrapped approach. Generally the stats were okay though, and don't make super strong claims from some pretty weak data. Though GAMs were a pretty odd choice and I'd have preferred some sort of explicit model fit with Bayesian fitting or NLLS.
In the end all of this points to the sort of thing where they should really have been doing perturbational research. I.e. feeding cats different diets in a controlled lab space. This is not the sort of research that lends itself to surveys and that seriously impacts the actual practicality of its findings.
Also as an aside, I really cannot abide anyone who includes a questionably inspirational quote that they said themselves in the fucking French Alps on their own website. That's just pure wankery. The only people I usually see doing things like that are scientists like Trivers, which is not company one should wish to be in.
This is the limitation with policy made by people who just think "science" is when you quote an opinion with an article in a journal.
Decades of climate denialism, anti-veganism, and "race science" is perfectly acceptable under these rules because you could simply post studies funded by Exxon, meat and dairy lobbyists, and right-wing think-tanks which support their conclusion.
"Science should prevail" nerds could do well to consider that perhaps we have other means of identifying malicious behaviour. Any kind of checkbook exercise or algorithm that can pluck truth out of the air won't work; the scientific method was never intended to declare X or Y as permanent facts the way we use it online.
I'm sorry, I'm confused here. I'm obviously all against race science and greenwashing, but I was talking about the quoted study in my post.
That aside, it definitely is good to have more people talking about the inherent subjectivity and impermanence of science though!
lets say hypothetically your pet cat would be healthier and happier if you bypassed their stomach and digestive system entirely to simply feed them the required nutrients by direct injection. (doesn't matter how this is done, it's a hypothetical.)
Let's just say for the sake of the argument this is a magic black box that infinitely produces these nutrients and injects them at no immediate or long term cost. It consumes no power, doesn't require charging or reloading, it simply makes it so that your cat no longer has to eat.
Would this be ethical? We do a similar thing with humans on life support, and there's lots of debate about this being highly unethical. There's lot of push for medically assisted suicide/death in cases where it would be prudent.