Update to Terms of Service + New Bylaws (Protections for users) - Lemmy.World
lemmy.world
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/tos/#80-misinformation] https://legal.lemmy.world/bylaws/ [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.
  • Preston Maness ☭@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    20 days ago

    READ THE STUDY!

    No need to shout. I did.

    So you’re saying that vegan cats had roughly the same health as non vegan cats

    No. That is not what the study is saying. The study is saying that "we took a look, and couldn't tell if there was a difference or not." Which is understandable, given the methodology. Internet-based questionnaires/surveys are easy to conduct, but tend to have big error bars. It's a common trade-off made when first beginning to investigate a hypothesis.

    It's your typical "absence of evidence" versus "evidence of absence" conundrum. The authors note this in their comments on the limitations of their study and on avenues for further research:

    As we’ve noted previously [30], large-scale cross-sectional or ideally, longitudinal studies of cats maintained on different diets, utilising objective data, such as results of veterinary clinical examinations and laboratory data, as well as veterinary medical histories, should yield results of greater reliability, if sufficient funding could be sourced.

    and we’re not destroying our planet in industrial livestock murder. Sounds great!

    Comrade, I'm not trying to argue that cats are "obligate carnivores," or that cats should or should not have vegan diets. I'm not arguing about whether or not cats can meet their nutritional needs from vegan diets. I am only stating that the particular study linked does not provide any usable evidence in support of a conclusion. That's literally what "no reductions were statistically significant" means: that the collected data is not sufficient to draw reliable conclusions.

    Other studies may very well have more rigorous methodologies that convincingly demonstrate the nutritional completeness of vegan diets for cats. But not this study.

    • destroyamerica@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      20 days ago

      eh i disagree. if we generally know what is in meat that cats need that isn't in plants, and we already do synthesize it to put it in normal cat food to enrich it, I don't think we need super rigorous studies about vegan diets in general, just on the specific brands of vegan cat food to try and catch companies who aren't properly enriching the vegan food. I think if there was something else major in meat that we were missing this study would have shown it.

      • Preston Maness ☭@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        20 days ago

        I think if there was something else major in meat that we were missing this study would have shown it.

        That's fair enough. Not all nutrient deficiencies have acute presentations, and the seven indicators of illness may not account for all the ways nutrient deficiencies could present, but if the crowd shrieking about animal cruelty was right in its hyperbolic hypothesis, then it would be likely for at least one of those seven indicators to get tripped.

    • ButtBidet [he/him]
      ·
      20 days ago

      FYI I have no patience for non-vegans concern trolling vegan issues. If you're actively harming sentient animals, your opinion is clouded by your own guilt. Apologies in advance if you happen to be vegan.

      So you’re saying that vegan cats had roughly the same health as non vegan cats

      No. That is not what the study is saying. The study is saying that "we took a look, and couldn't tell if there was a difference or not."

      I don't know why you're so concerned about my taking my ending summary, out of context, when I wrote paragraphs summarising the lit review and minor differences in kidney issues with non vegan vs vegan cats.

      couldn't tell if there was a difference or not

      Science doesn't speak in absolutes expect in maths. If you read anything outside of the abstract, you'd see that there's a few other existing studies that support it, no studies claim the opposite, and further research should be done as in all medical research of this type.

      Other studies may very well have more rigorous methodologies

      No kidding. No if only the "cats must eat meat" side had this sorta need for rigorous methodology.