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?
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?