I don’t have a lot of context around this issue either as I don’t subscribe to c/vegan, but one could make a compelling argument that stating a claim which is at odds with science as being fact (rather than stating something like ‘I believe (or ‘These sources say’) that feeding cats plant-based diets is safe, but these sources disagree’) is in itself disinformation. Stating a disputed thing as fact is at the very least misleading, and when it’s dealing with the health of animals, that probably should be enough to attract scrutiny.
it’s not up to admins to decide what is disinformation and what is not
Then who? You, perhaps? If garbage isn’t taken out we end up with extreme right insanity like injecting bleach for covid treatment. What you’re pushing for is literally called anarchism and it’s childish af.
I read a little more about this situation, and I agree after all. I made a mistake by jumping into a discussion I knew little about. I guess there are some topics that may be quite harmful.
Then who? You, perhaps?
I’ll be honest, this is close to what I was thinking initially. I believe the person who consumes information is responsible for checking if this same information is true. But now I see it may not be as simple.
So when something is obvious disinformation and can easily be proven to be disinformation they should just do nothing about it because admins aren’t there to decide what is and isn’t disinformation?
You signed up to the wrong website then, 8chan is what you’re looking for!
I already said that I agree with it in my other comments. I was dumb enough to talk about something I knew too little about. No obvious and harmful disinformation should be publicly spread, obviously. I guess, I better delete my comment to stop these replies and downvotes.
There must be some moderation or the loudest but stupidest would have the rest of us unable to have discussions. I don’t agree with demoting the entire mod team but ehh, cats are obligate carnivores. Not giving them meat will make them sick and possibly die. Encouraging that contrary to reality is encouraging animal abuse. If they want a vegan pet it can’t be a cat.
some moderation or the loudest but stupidest would have the rest of us unable to have discussions
I don’t agree on this; it is just using it as an excuse to censor dissent.
Not giving them meat will make them sick and possibly die.
Yes, many on Lemmy pointed that out, and enough reports were made that admins got heavily involved in the managing of the community, which should be a huge concern for those that left Reddit for similar reasons.
Discussions are good for those that can handle critical thinking, but it seems that any “science” not aligning to the status quo will be censored.
This goes back to more enforcement and more interference with what moderators want vs. admins vs. users.
IMO: Like our society and our social media, Lemmy is becoming much more similar to a Police State.[1].
some moderation or the loudest but stupidest would have the rest of us unable to have discussions
I don’t agree on this; it is just using it as an excuse to censor dissent.
You WOULD think so, being one of the loudest and stupidest.
The controversy is about abusing cats, who are obligate carnivores, by forcing them to be vegan. It’s about not enabling animal abuse, not censorship overreach.
Discussions are good for those that can handle critical thinking, but it seems that any “science” not aligning to the status quo will be censored.
Unless your quotes around ‘science’ are intended to refer to things that are not actually science at all, you’ve got the situation backwards. In this case, it was the status quo disagreeing with science (in a dangerous way) that was being censored, but honestly, I don’t think that’s bad in this case…? Someone who legitimately doesn’t know better could easily go to a thread like that, see a lot of folks saying “Oh, yeah, you can do this!”, and assume it’s true.
It’s similar to if I posted a bunch of BS stating that bleach could be used in place of milk in cereal if you run out. That should be censored, because unless you subscribe to the belief that people shouldn’t be prevented from making stupid mistakes if they’re not smart enough to do their own research, it has no chance of doing good to leave it, but some chance of doing harm. Like, how definitively factually inaccurate does something need to be, in your opinion, before it can be censored?
deleted by creator
I don’t have a lot of context around this issue either as I don’t subscribe to c/vegan, but one could make a compelling argument that stating a claim which is at odds with science as being fact (rather than stating something like ‘I believe (or ‘These sources say’) that feeding cats plant-based diets is safe, but these sources disagree’) is in itself disinformation. Stating a disputed thing as fact is at the very least misleading, and when it’s dealing with the health of animals, that probably should be enough to attract scrutiny.
Yeah, I agree. I made a mistake by commenting on a topic I knew little about. Thanks for additional explanation!
Then who? You, perhaps? If garbage isn’t taken out we end up with extreme right insanity like injecting bleach for covid treatment. What you’re pushing for is literally called anarchism and it’s childish af.
I read a little more about this situation, and I agree after all. I made a mistake by jumping into a discussion I knew little about. I guess there are some topics that may be quite harmful.
I’ll be honest, this is close to what I was thinking initially. I believe the person who consumes information is responsible for checking if this same information is true. But now I see it may not be as simple.
I respect that you came back to share that.
The person you replied to is a troll. Don’t take the bait.
Well, I’m sorry. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Never thought my first interaction here would be like this. But it’s my fault.
Just making sure you’re aware.
You can just block or or ignore the posts that seem extreme and almost emotional. Those people are mostly the very far left.
Smear those that don’t follow the status quo.
The lemmy circle jerk continues.
“It’s everyone else who’s wrong.”
Feel free to continue to think that way, but I will continue to disagree.
Dissidence =/= troll
This is the list of communities that you moderate and post 99% of the content that it almost universally downvoted.
So when something is obvious disinformation and can easily be proven to be disinformation they should just do nothing about it because admins aren’t there to decide what is and isn’t disinformation?
You signed up to the wrong website then, 8chan is what you’re looking for!
I already said that I agree with it in my other comments. I was dumb enough to talk about something I knew too little about. No obvious and harmful disinformation should be publicly spread, obviously. I guess, I better delete my comment to stop these replies and downvotes.
I agree, we are becoming much more similar to other social media sites.
There must be some moderation or the loudest but stupidest would have the rest of us unable to have discussions. I don’t agree with demoting the entire mod team but ehh, cats are obligate carnivores. Not giving them meat will make them sick and possibly die. Encouraging that contrary to reality is encouraging animal abuse. If they want a vegan pet it can’t be a cat.
I don’t agree on this; it is just using it as an excuse to censor dissent.
Yes, many on Lemmy pointed that out, and enough reports were made that admins got heavily involved in the managing of the community, which should be a huge concern for those that left Reddit for similar reasons.
Discussions are good for those that can handle critical thinking, but it seems that any “science” not aligning to the status quo will be censored.
This goes back to more enforcement and more interference with what moderators want vs. admins vs. users.
IMO: Like our society and our social media, Lemmy is becoming much more similar to a Police State.[1].
[1] Police State - DEAD PREZ | 03:40 | https://youtu.be/Ic-E7OHWvGQ ↩︎
You WOULD think so, being one of the loudest and stupidest.
The controversy is about abusing cats, who are obligate carnivores, by forcing them to be vegan. It’s about not enabling animal abuse, not censorship overreach.
Joining in the lemmy circle jerk of name calling anyone that does not align to your thinking, nice.
There’s “not aligning” and then there’s “spreading misinformation in furtherance of animal abuse”.
You’re firmly in the latter camp, so you can gtfo with your persecution complex bullshit.
I don’t agree with your smears.
I posted the possible source that started this.
Thanks for the chat though.
Unless your quotes around ‘science’ are intended to refer to things that are not actually science at all, you’ve got the situation backwards. In this case, it was the status quo disagreeing with science (in a dangerous way) that was being censored, but honestly, I don’t think that’s bad in this case…? Someone who legitimately doesn’t know better could easily go to a thread like that, see a lot of folks saying “Oh, yeah, you can do this!”, and assume it’s true.
It’s similar to if I posted a bunch of BS stating that bleach could be used in place of milk in cereal if you run out. That should be censored, because unless you subscribe to the belief that people shouldn’t be prevented from making stupid mistakes if they’re not smart enough to do their own research, it has no chance of doing good to leave it, but some chance of doing harm. Like, how definitively factually inaccurate does something need to be, in your opinion, before it can be censored?
Luckily we have the ability to spin up new instances and have new communities, to subvert any overreach