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.
I didn't consider admins any more qualified in parsing medical journals than mods are. I've got letters behind my name and am not supremely confident in that. That said, anything like a pro-ana community should be quickly purged.
I've got no idea about the context of the vegan drama though.
probably could have used a less loaded term than purging in relation to the pro-ana problem. lmao.
Well that would be pro-mia.
Technically, sure. But never let a technicality get in the way of a laugh.
We'll be posting a response to that in the next 24-48 hours, just finishing reviewing with the team.
Is this response still in review?
See https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/26218551 and https://lemmy.world/post/18830280
Okay, specifically ignoring fediaf language because they're a vet nutritionist with strong understanding of amino acid profiles and bioavailability I take it (and I'm talking about the trigger happy admin here) https://europeanpetfood.org/pet-food-facts/fact-sheets/nutrition/vegetarian-diets/
You keep posting this but it doesn’t back up your stance at all really
If you read what the vegans said, they pretty much echoed exactly what was on that site. "It's hard, it's likely not worth it, it requires cooperation with your vet, it's possible."
Reading the website, the message is pretty clearly “don’t fucking do this but if you do you have to go to a professional.”
And your cat will still feel like shit
Another fun note, the only sources for that article are over 20 years old with the exception of one in like 2013 titled:
‘Homemade dog food recipes can be a risky business, study finds’ (15 July 2013)
…yyyeeeeaaaahhhh
Uh huh. Here's a literature review from a vegan.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/6/9/57
“But what about this biased source!”
Nah…. I did skim it though, and the conclusion doesn’t actually provide anything solid other than “regular commercial food also bad”
Really my take away from all of this to is to stop buying cat food and start bringing home rodents and birds for them to chow down on.
Since it's a literature review, it's actually many sources with some not supporting the position and extensively cited. I figured since you seem to have problems with information coming from industry experts who are literally in charge of pet food formulation because they don't have enough citations, that would do it for you. Just kidding, I knew you wouldn't bother reading it.
I'm not a vegan and largely think the effort in creating a highly processed cat food with synthetic taurine and supplemented essential amino acid and essential fatty acids is a waste of money. But being smugly ignorant of the fact that it's not only quite possible to do that and it is currently being done is overall more contemptible to me.
Anyway here's a review from different sources.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/
Good morning! I figured I’d pop in and see just how silly you made yourself look. Here we go:
heavy sigh
Vegans be reposting this link everywhere not realizing how silly it makes them look. First, one of the first points it makes is that there hasn’t been much research done into feeding cats vegan diets, mostly because it’s a bad idea.
Some great lines:
To simplify: even with protein supplements your cats muscles will decay over time.
To simplify: Supplements didn’t work. Though findings are mixed between all like, 3 studies that tried
To simplify: your cat feels like shit and acts like they feel like shit
Simplify: it was bad. Sometimes it wasn’t so bad, but lots of times it was bad and the owner should feel bad
I can keep going, literally every paragraph has some good “don’t fucking do that” material.
This is what I mean when people aren't able to parse the literature because they lack the basic biology knowledge.
https://sci-hub.ru/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1992.tb09872.x
That study is about feeding human vegan diets to cats with no supplementation. The point of that diet was to cause taurine deficiency associated retinopathy. There were no supplements other than potassium in the experimental group which (surprise surprise) caused the cessation of symptoms in hypokalemic cats. The CK levels were associated with hypokalemia, which makes sense due to the integral relationship between potassium and muscle cells and the fact that hypokalemia is specifically associated with flaccid paralysis.
To simplify: you don't know what the hell you're taking about but you're happy to come to conclusions with data you've pulled straight out of your ass
I pulled the conclusions from the multiple papers that have been cited saying feeding cats a vegan diet is a shitty idea.
Every time that happens, someone pops up with another source that’s either highly questionable, or just outright doesn’t support their position.
This whole thing is a non argument
I'm responding to the exact study you cited in the review. What you said was wrong on the face of it which is why it makes sense that you reached wildly different conclusions to the review.
Yes, there are bioavailability issues with certain things like pro-vitamin a carotenoids or types of vitamin d. That does not mean that the correct types cannot be supplemented or that all supplements do not work. It particularly has nothing to do with essential amino acid supplementation. You've got a very cursory understanding of this and it shows.
Apparently that organization in your link has no issue advising its possible to have a healthy vegan/vegetarian diet. Guess they aren't afraid people will kill their cats over it.
A panel of experts providing data driven advice, who knew.
I am also interested in learning more about vegan drama
The more you know about academic research, the less you trust something just because it's academic research.
Like, even after peer review, it's not uncommon to find out the peers who first reviewed it missed something or just flat out don't know what they were reading.
It's like my stats professor said: