(good morning, btw)

Yeah this is all pretty fair sounding IMO.

I read through all the comments today and I saw a few good ones on how it might be hard to moderate, no need for me to rehash those they did better than I could, but I can see why this might be desired anyway.

One of the other posts is talking about how they're dealing with someone making over 100 anti vegan troll accounts, which IMO leaves the realm of trolling and becomes harassment of some kind. I definitely support the idea of banning that person and their 100 accounts lol, so I can definitely agree something like this whole proposal is needed (if not this proposal itself.)

it sounds like it would prohibit discussion of published research if it goes against pre-determined outcomes

A distinction needs to be made between good faith discussions of peer-reviewed, published research, and bad faith discussions of anecdotal evidence.

If you're carnist, have scientific reasons to back up your beliefs, and are willing to have what might amount to sometimes confrontational conversations with vegans or at least vegan apologists that have their own scientific evidence, then I don't think Fediverse Anarchist Flotilla (FAF) mods would have an issue with your presence in any db0/Anarchist Nexus forum.

Ultimately though, if you support carnivore communities, you consent to the hierarchical structures that place humans above animals which is fundamentally in conflict with anarchist principles of abolishing all hierarchies. This same thinking is why FAF mods have taken proactive and reactive stances against Zionists in the recent weeks and months. Zionism is a racist ideology that mythologizes Jewish supremacy over Native Arabian peoples, and results in real-world harm in the form of open air prisons, land stealing, genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, among other harms.

Zionism, however, is an INTRA species hierarchical philosophy. It is by humans and between humans. Carnivorism is an INTER species hierarchical philosophy. It is by humans and between humans and all other wildlife on Earth. The hierarchical principle is the same.

Not all beliefs should be given equal representation.

there is a lot of miscommunication and mischaracterization going on, and if you don't mind, I'd like to address the takeaways you have, because it's probably widespread.

first of all, hi. I'm the problem.

I have been on the fediverse for about a decade, and, yes, I have some 100 different accounts.

I am not antivegan.

they are not troll accounts. I do my best to comply with all instance rules, as well as community rules.

the effort required just for me to compile the list of instances that have given me an account would be probably a full day or more. that's for me to do it. for the admins here to do it, without my help, is probably impossible.

If you’re carnist, have scientific reasons to back up your beliefs, and are willing to have what might amount to sometimes confrontational conversations with vegans or at least vegan apologists that have their own scientific evidence, then I don’t think Fediverse Anarchist Flotilla (FAF) mods would have an issue with your presence in any db0/Anarchist Nexus forum.

I think carnist is used as a insult in the vegan space? Other then that, I agree with this statement. However, that isn't the policy as written in the post.

Ultimately though, if you support carnivore communities, you consent to the hierarchical structures that place humans above animals which is fundamentally in conflict with anarchist principles of abolishing all hierarchies.

I agree with this, I'm putting my human health above that of animals. I admit it.

Not all beliefs should be given equal representation.

Would that include the research, literature, and communities of ketogenic and zero-carb people trying to improve their health?

"allow leeway to open posts to challenge science"

random spitballed suggestion: introduce
a public science focused community. we have a pinned thread/FAQ for current contentious topics, including links to the current research on these things. You know, anti-vax, flat earth ect.

If you disagree with the scientific conclusion as presented by this, you make a post and drop reasonable research supporting your claim.

Moderators can then keep reasonably up-to date on research as it's posted, as long as the pinned FAQ stays reasonably up to date then moderators and admins will have a quick reference for these actions.

scientific debate can fall into this community, something like a hybrid between YPTB and an actual scientific debate community perhaps?

Granted, I am under no illusion this is an a lot of work, and it probably has more than a few flaws, but maybe its a decent starting point.

Absolutely!

I too would like the power to stop people spewing anti-scientific stuff against my position that all humans should be killed.

It's well documented in many scientific studies that people are bad for Environment in many, many ways, hence anybody denying that all humans should be killed is going against the Science.

Oh, and might as well throw in all pets should be killed, based on similar scientifically-supported reasons. So, yeah, anybody against getting rid of all pets is denying the Science that pets are bad for the Environment.

It is totally logical that when something has been scientifically shown to be bad, that means that the only acceptable solution is the absolutist one of "totally stop doing it by the means I favor" and anybody denying that solution is Denying Science.

ecosystems REQUIRE trophic energy transfer to persist

And what a lot of vegans try to argue is that heterotrophic energy transfer is unnecessary. We can go straight to autotrophic energy transfer while reducing harm as much as practically possible.

But more broadly, this post isn't about forcing one ideal on others.

This post is about combatting anti-science rhetoric and bad faith arguing specifically applied to the vegan discourse just as FAF mods would want to apply the same principles to climate change, vaccination, other conspiracy-led beliefs, etc., and equalizing moderator responses to FAF users that engage these ways. Evidence in the form of scientific consensus is at the forefront of moderator action here, only applied to a vegan context.

I'll admit I'm not really interested in laying blame or judgement here, I don't think its my place to do so. What I will say is that I doubt you're the only person with hundreds of accounts, and since I'll take you at your word that you're not an anti-vegan troll, so then there's probably another person(s) doing the trolling.

just as FAF mods would want to apply the same principles to climate change, vaccination, other conspiracy-led beliefs, etc.

Then the policy should be about standards for evidence and how to participate in good faith.

Evidence in the form of scientific consensus is at the forefront of moderator action here, only applied to a vegan context.

Consensus isn't science, if it were so then we would be still be based on geocentrism. Science is a model that makes falsifiable predictions. If a better model comes along that predicts better you leave the old model behind. A policy that moderates anything against consensus is anti-science by its very nature.

I don't think this post challenges that.

This post is seeking to equalize moderator efforts in determining which discussions are good and which are bad by appealing to the same standards of moderation that the current FAF Team applies to other realms of discourse, notably vaccination, climate change, anti-fascism, etc.

This post is not about mods forcing vegan beliefs on FAF users. This post is about allowing vegan/anti-vegan discourse to flourish in a safe space with charitable exchanges of evidence and viewpoints. Users that announce their opinions on FAF platforms, and when pushed to explain or defend themselves use anecdotes, strawmans, troll tactics, or recoil by name-calling and attacking other's credibility - avoiding discussion altogether around the facts at hand - would be against instance rules and subject to moderator action.

If anything, this post extends the same rules FAF mods use on other topics of discussion to veganism. It does not introduce special rules to discussions specifically around veganism.

I know I am the person yarrmatey was talking about, but I strongly feel they have misconstrued me.

While I strongly support veganism and people get very angry about being told to eat less meat due to the harmful practices of industrialized production of it, I do not know if this should be the way it's approached.

Anti-science is anti-science. I would be fine with a general "don't lie about reality" rule, as hard as it is to enforce correctly or fairly. Veganism has a lot of fantastic arguments, but it's not a science. It has data to back up it's philosophy, but it's not a science.

I would be fine with a soft "don't antagonize people for being vegan rule" but that could also be solved with some of our existing rules enforced for that reason. I feel we do in general, but I could be wrong.

I haven't ventured into vegan communities/users often as I am not a vegan (tried to be a vegetarian for a bit before my family caused me to stop), so have no experience on how the communities are treated beyond random bad faith users going "mmm meat" and nothing of substance beyond that as an argument.

I upvoted this solely for the idea of protecting vegan users communities, but I'm not quite sure if this is the method of doing that.

Nay

I think there's an honest conversation to be had along the lines of the ethics of animal exploitation and veganism within anarchist discourse broadly, but framing it as an anti-scientific ideology is not just highly contestable but IMO a misdirection.

Vaccination denial isn't a problem just because it's rooted in anti-scientific discourse, it's a problem because it harms not the antivax adults that spread it but their non-consenting children and to vulnerable populations that dont have access to adequate Healthcare. If it were a question of scientific consensus, we could just as easily be having this conversation about UFO enthusiasts and flat earthers.

I would be open to hearing the same question posed with its anti-exploitation framework, but I would still have hesitations.

your dietary and life choices are your own, nothing wrong with them

This can be said broadly, but when people's life choices result in the harm of others, including animals, there is a problem with that.

Think about the settlers in the West Bank in Gaza. They make life choices to steal Palestinian land. This is harmful though because it ethnically cleanses Gazans and leads to homelessness, instability, physical and psychological harm of Gazans.

It is a persistent challenge in life that morality and one's morals grapple with the harm and suffering that occurs in the world. One might say that any project of harm reduction under a system of capitalism is futile because no capitalist consumption is ethical. The magnitude of moral issues in the world should not, however, discourage us from upgrading our morality over time as we try to understand our impact on others in the world and attone for those.

Regardless of philosophy or morality, this post is about equalizing moderator and admin response to anti-vegan dogma in similar ways to anti-climate change dogma and anti-vaccination dogma and anti-fascist dogma. It is not about forcing particular views on users, but cultivating a safe space where people of opposing views can come together and discuss their differences in meaningful ways. Trolls and other bad faith actors are squarely at the center of this conversation, not the particular beliefs themselves.

I don't understand the need to add a distinction here for veganism.

Your post gives off "All Lives Matter" in the context of "Black Lives Matter" arguments.

The goal is what you describe: aligning all moderator actions such that any anti-science discussions done in bad faith are shut down. The issue is that veganism in particular on FAF forums, as claimed by OP, sees disproportionate levels of trolling and non-evidentiary critiques. This post seeks to align moderator engagement in these contexts as the bad faith forces to be countered are, as claimed by OP, overhanded.

You didn't read anything about the actual post. This is a knee trigger response, and one that OP wants to actively combat per their reasons in the post.

The issue isn't banning anti-veganist beliefs. The issue is regarding treatment by anti-vegans of vegans in the ways conversations about veganism are held. There are trolls, dogmatists, and bad actors on FAF instances and across the Fediverse that seek to stonewall any discussion about veganism.

This post is the opposite of that: promoting safe spaces where scientific discussion in good faith is allowed to flourish so anti-vegan, vegans, and others can be better educated about the science at hand and the ideology more broadly.

As a vegan, I agree with this post.

I don't want FAF forums to become echo chambers. I want there to be safe spaces where people from all backgrounds can come together and talk about veganism in healthy, positive ways with the latest science and philosophical/moral frameworks.

Spaces where discussions surrounding veganism instantly get derailed into name-calling, trolling, strawmanning, threatening by community banning, etc. are not helpful for anyone.

Aligning moderator action here is great. The more we can institutionalize rules of moderation (and make them transparent for all to see), the better moderation teams can do the good work of the Fediverse as well as onboard/offboard individuals over time.

However, that isn't the policy as written in the post.

OP please correct the post if I'm right, or let me know if I'm misunderstanding if I'm wrong.

Would that include the research, literature, and communities of ketogenic and zero-carb people trying to improve their health?

If the goal of a specific community is to improve the health of its constituents, then that's fine. If that can be accomplished in ketogenic and zero-carb ways without unnecessary harm of others via animal consumption, then that's fine.

As a vegan myself, I would appreciate a safe space that I think OP is trying to advocate for where the topic of health with regards to ketogenic and zero-carb diets is discussed, and the possibility of doing those things in vegan ways is broached, considered, and allowed to stand on its own.

But if health is the ultimate concern for any of these communities, I would want leaders in these communities to consider that those outcomes can be achieved in vegan ways, and for there to be respectful discussion (where vegans don't automatically shove our views down other's throats) between vegans and members of those communities should they be curious to exchange ketogenic or zero-carb methods in favor of vegan methods.

Let's not forget the core tenants of veganism: reduction of animal suffering as much as possible. Vegans recognize that there are other people that exist who cannot get all their nutritional needs in vegan ways. What vegans argue is that there is a distinction between what is nutritionally necessary and unnecessary. If people have the means and knowledge to achieve their goals in vegan ways, whether health related or other, then they should be encouraged to do so..

communities to consider that those outcomes can be achieved in vegan ways

How do I achieve a zero-carbohydate diet with a vegan eating pattern?

Then the policy should be about standards for evidence and how to participate in good faith.

Agreed.

Consensus isn't science

But there can be consensus in science, with the underlying belief that any consensus can and should be challenged according to new evidence.

Social organizations need some source of truth in order to govern their operations. Scientific consensus is the best tool we have for that, so long as the governance also follows the science should the prevailing consensus be scientifically dismantled.

But there can be consensus in science, with the underlying belief that any consensus can and should be challenged according to new evidence.

Very much agreed.

Social organizations need some source of truth in order to govern their operations. Scientific consensus is the best tool we have for that, so long as the governance also follows the science should the prevailing consensus be scientifically dismantled.

The trouble is we are not talking about a organizations guiding philosophy, we are talking about moderating people who don't follow the consensus as 'anti-science'

In my postings here on lemmy focusing on metabolic health I've been called anti-science many times, I hold little faith the nuance you are demonstrating here will apply to a policy over a long enough time horizon.

I would be fine with a soft "don't antagonize people for being vegan rule" but that could also be solved with some of our existing rules enforced for that reason. I feel we do in general, but I could be wrong.

This is actually not a rule and you can antagonize vegans for being vegans, despite other rules seeming like it would not be allowed. But I appreciate this thought of not antagonizing people for no reason.

Vaccination denial isn't a problem just because it's rooted in anti-scientific discourse, it's a problem because it harms not the antivax adults that spread it but their non-consenting children and to vulnerable populations that dont have access to adequate Healthcare.

I feel the same way since I am a vulnerable population when it comes to vaccines. It was clarified that vaccine denial would be allowed which I think is why this post was framed this way.

If someone is spitting anti-science nonsense then it should be removed for that reason

We don't do that currently, but it's an interesting idea.

My personal ethical framework is "if everyone involved is consenting and cool with what's happening, then it's probably fine"

It gets muddy at times, but it usually works out okay.

Vegans abide by that. And vegans haven't ever really attacked me. I've had people who hate vegans attack me for defending them.

What is the issue here? Why are all the references at the end relevant at all?

i mean, i find the gelderloos piece to be highly relevant

If someone is spitting anti-science nonsense then it should be removed for that reason

according to the proposal, that is what is happening right now, but not in veganism discussions:

From a moderation standpoint, this pattern is already widely recognized in other domains as characteristic of science denial. The proposal is to apply that same recognition consistently when it appears in anti-vegan discourse.

I don't understand the need to add a distinction here for veganism.

as i understood it, the proposal isnt about adding a distinction when taking moderation actions, but about taking moderation actions at all. as is being done on other topics already.

to me it looks like u agree with the proposal, but got confused.

If that's the case, the proposal should be focused on discourse in general, not on veganism.

I thought the issue was the patterns of behaviour of certain groups that seek to disrupt.

i was being snarky. it's clear that the selection was quite slip-shod, and the gelderloos piece is actually pushing back on veganism as political praxis. the op is pointing to veganism as political praxis, so i doubt they actually read that, or most of the other links.

I agree. Although it may have been explicitly codified previously in the FAF instance rules that dictate other realms of discussion. I'm not sure if those rules explicitly carried over to anti-vegan dogma. I'd have to learn more about how we govern these instances. I'm just a user, don't spend too much time thinking about these meta-things.

How do I achieve a zero-carbohydate diet with a vegan eating pattern?

I'm not an expert on the latest research surrounding zero-carb diets and if any research has been done with vegan diets in particular.

But if you wanted to make a new post on the community you mod/admin, I would be interested in learning the facts and willing to do my own research to contribute to the conversation.

Thanks I was starting to get really confused. From the bits I was reading from that article that's the impression I was getting.

I must confess that the more I read OP's post the less I understand it

Nay. This proposal is moderation overreach. I'm down for rules to keep discussion relatively civil and in good faith, broadly, but it's odd to ask a bunch of not-scientists moderators to determine the scientific validity of discussion on a topic. As long as discussion is being had in good faith things will work themselves out.

It has data to back up it's philosophy, but it's not a science.

Thank you for making this distinction. Veganism is a philosophy, not a science. You cannot defend philosophical ideals on their face with facts. Now, the facts may lead us to make philosophical judgements, as is the case with animals showing signs of pain when exposed to harm and then considering them to have sentience. But science fundamentally cannot answer questions about morality.

This post appealing to pro-science debate and discussion when veganism is an ideology is odd. It might be a useful tactic to push back on bad faith actors that intentionally go to harass and berate vegan communities just for the sake of their existence, but there can be (and most certainly is) science out there that shows veganism is not the only worthwhile lifestyle that causes positive outcomes in humans and which people would want to adopt into their personal lives.

When we get to the bottom of it, the discussion of veganism sits within the larger discussion of morality and how the most amount of moral actors, whether human or animal, reach their innate potential and flourish. This gets into moral schools of thought like Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and Consequentialism, which again by themselves cannot be proven or disproven scientifically.

As a vegan myself, I want more people to join our movement, and the way you do this is in safe spaces where people can think freely. Bad faith actors, trolls, harassers, stalkers, etc. work against that goal.

Some people may be fine with that, but it is a tenant of the FAF for there to be freedom of thought and expression without propagating hate and hostility towards others. Veganism promotes that, as does Anti-Zionism, Anti-Nazism, etc.

Ahh... there are few things that cynically amuse me quite like the idea that anarchism is advanced by prohibiting things that somebody has taken it upon themselves to declare to be in opposition to it.

This is absurd.

I disagree because I want a different approach, and I'd like to know if you see it's failing the purposes of your proposal.

1. I insist that protection of dietary behavior choices should land in CoC, paragraph What is Unacceptable, part Degrading, disrespecting, or insulting another person or group of people, because of their .... I would've put it in it's own line right before Substance and medicinal use. Veganism, vegetarianism and others are not attacked as a theory in a vacuum, but as a part of identity or/and ideology or/and belief system of an individual or a group of people, therefore IMHO it's a given it should be there, in that neighborhood, and therefore become a CoC violation to attack consumption-based identities.

2. I propose that it'd be open-ended, so with that standard-establishing approach every option is treated as valid, while any intergroup attack would be treated as a CoC violation. This should be later included in the CoC part Authoritarism, ....

I can see how it can be compared to All Lives Matter bullshit, but the whole point of a mod ruleset is to be a generalistic checklist to establish predictable and transparent system of classifiers/markers, so we can easily check modlist entries against it and call PTB if something doesn't check out. Specifics and ambigueties overwhelms such systems

1. I feel like CoC can have an appendage that states three other points concerning harassment campaigns:

a. Death by thousand cuts approach: systemic and repeated (more than three) light violations result in more serious measures

b. If violating behavior is shared between what is assumed as one person or a conspiring group of persons, it is treated as brigading, and their violations sum up for mods to enact blanket measures, and put up a vote for undoing or keeping them with provided evidence

c. This two clarifications can be further specified by \c\ommunity-specific rules and limitations and employed by local moderators

1. If a suspected single troll or a trolling campaign isn't captured by existing rules or my proposals, they are only to be disengaged for now, but their example should be put for another rule review to ensure a swift evolution of instance-wide CoC to adapt to further threats.

I tried to formulate this comment as a series of points in an opposition to you, because I didn't feel like I get what exactly you propose, and how mods would act on this. You describe the motivation behind your proposals and what you want to see, but leave it up to our imagination what a dry, lawyer-like entry in the rules you want to be put into actions. I can't vote positively before I can see your vision of a rule, sublimated into a direct instruction you insist all mods should follow. It is not your intent, and I trust you and it is a pretty generic mistake, but what I see in this post is you engaging the crowd in a conversation about common and understandable goals but leaving out your exact plan (you'd be checked against). I want to see the opposite hardwired into every instance of community management and/or voting with consequencies affecting everyone.

Doesn't veganism result in the harm of others, including plants?

Veganism recognizes that consciousness exists on a spectrum, and that there are distinct biological differences in organisms that allow them to experience pain.

If you want to have a discussion of the evidence that animals experience pain and plants/algae/bacteria/fungi don't, let's take this to a different thread than the one at hand. OP made this post to discuss the meta surrounding vegan debates on the FAF, and not particularly the debate itself.