Intro
We would like to address some of the points that have been raised by some of our users (and by one of our communities here on Lemmy.World) on /c/vegan regarding a recent post concerning vegan diets for cats. We understand that the vegan community here on Lemmy.World is rightfully upset with what has happened. In the following paragraphs we will do our best to respond to the major points that we’ve gleaned from the threads linked here.
Links
Actions in question
Admin removing comments discussing vegan cat food in a community they did not moderate.
The comments have been restored.
The comments were removed for violating our instance rule against animal abuse (https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/#11-attacks-on-users). Rooki is a cat owner himself and he was convinced that it was scientific consensus that cats cannot survive on a vegan diet. This originally justified the removal.
Even if one of our admins does not agree with what is posted, unless the content violates instance rules it should not be removed. This was the original justification for action.
Removing some moderators of the vegan community
Removed moderators have been reinstated.
This was in the first place a failure of communication. It should have been clearly communicated towards the moderators why a certain action was taken (instance rules) and that the reversal of that action would not be considered (during the original incident).
The correct way forward in this case would have been an appeal to the admin team, which would have been handled by someone other than the admin initially acting on this.
We generally discuss high impact actions among team before acting on them. This should especially be the case when there is no strong urgency on the act performed. Since this was only a moderator removal and not a ban, this should have been discussed among the team prior to action.
Going forward we have agreed, as a team, to discuss such actions first, to help prevent future conflict
Posting their own opposing comment and elevating its visibility
Moderators’ and admins’ comments are flagged with flare, which is okay and by design on Lemmy. But their comments are not forced above the comments of other users for the purpose of arguing a point.
These comments were not elevated to appear before any other users comments.
In addition, Rooki has since revised his comments to be more subjective and less reactive.
Community Responses
The removed comments presented balanced views on vegan cat food, citing scientific research supporting its feasibility if done properly.
Presenting scientifically backed peer reviewed studies is 100% allowed, and encouraged. While we understand anyone can cherry pick studies, if a individual can find a large amount of evidence for their case, then by all accounts they are (in theory) technically correct.
That being said, using facts to bully others is not in good faith either. For example flooding threads with JSTOR links.
The topic is controversial but not clearly prohibited by site rules.
That is correct, at the time there was no violation of site wide rules.
Rooki’s actions appear to prioritize his personal disagreement over following established moderation guidelines.
Please see the above regarding addressing moderator policy.
Conclusions
Regarding moderator actions
We will not be removing Rooki from his position as moderator, as we believe that this is a disproportionate response for a heat-of-the-moment response.
Everybody makes mistakes, and while we do try and hold the site admin staff to a higher standard, calling for folks resignation from volunteer positions over it would not fair to them. Rooki has given up 100’s of hours of his free time to help both Lemmy.World, FHF and the Fediverse as a whole grown in far reaching ways. You don’t immediately fire your staff when they make a bad judgment call.
While we understand that this may not be good enough for some users, we hope that they can be understanding that everyone, no matter the position, can make mistakes.
We’ve also added a new by-laws section detailing the course of action users should ideally take, when conflict arises. In the event that a user needs to go above the admin team, we’ve provided a secure link to the operations team (who the admin’s report to, ultimately). See https://legal.lemmy.world/bylaws/#12-site-admin-issues-for-community-moderators for details.
TL;DR In the event of an admin action that is deemed unfair or overstepping, moderators can raise this with our operations team for an appeal/review.
Regarding censorship claims
Regarding the alleged censorship, comments were removed without a proper reason. This was out of line, and we will do our best to make sure that this does not happen again. We have updated our legal policy to reflect the new rules in place that bind both our user AND our moderation staff regarding removing comments and content. We WANT users to hold us accountable to the rules we’ve ALL agreed to follow, going forward. If members of the community find any of the rules we’ve set forth unreasonable, we promise to listen and adjust these rules where we can. Our terms of service is very much a living document, as any proper binding governing document should be.
Controversial topics can and should be discussed, as long as they are not causing risk of imminent physical harm. We are firm believers in the hippocratic oath of “do no harm”.
We encourage users to also list pros and cons regarding controversial viewpoints to foster better discussion. Listing the cons of your viewpoint does not mean you are wrong or at fault, just that you are able to look at the issue from another perspective and aware of potential points of criticism.
While we want to allow our users to express themselves on our platform, we also do not want users to spread mis-information that risks causing direct physical harm to another individual, origination or property owned by the before mentioned. To echo the previous statement “do no harm”.
To this end, we have updated our legal page to make this more clear. We already have provisions for attacking groups, threatening individuals and animal harm, this is a logical extension of this to both protect our users and to protect our staff from legal recourse and make it more clear to everyone. We feel this is a very reasonable compromise, and take these additional very seriously.
Sincerely,
FHF / LemmyWorld Operations Team
EDIT: Added org operations contact info
IDK it seems like pretty clear animal abuse to me
Yep. The doublespeak here is wild. “Controversial topics can and should be discussed, as long as they are not causing risk of imminent physical harm. Therefore, we are leaving up comments that cause imminent risk of physical harm.”
Forget the particular details of this issue. It feels way, way more strongly like they’re trying to duck out of having to take action.
https://www.benevo.com/vegan-cat-food-from-benevo/
Benevo Cat foods contain all the nutrients an adult cat needs, including a wide range of vitamins (including A, B, D, E, K), essential fatty acids and taurine, without the need for slaughterhouse meat. Although obligate carnivores in the wild, domestic cats still need nutrients they would normally source from prey. Thankfully Benevo Cat contains all those nutrients in a bioavailable kibble.
Benevo Cat is a professional cat food, created by Benevo in 2005, formulated and checked by independent animal nutritionists to meet the AAFCO(USA) and FEDIAF(Europe) guidelines for animal nutrition.
We’ve had safe and healthy variants of vegan cat food for 20 years. Trying to elevate the question to animal abuse speaks entirely to personal ignorance.
Cut and paste blurb from a marketing website from a manufacturer. That you cut and pasted from your top level comment which currently is at -30 due to it’s lack of actual sources or anything of value.
This is not helpful to anyone and you may be out of your depth if you think it is.
I am not taking a position on feeding cats vegan food. I am just pointing out you are arguing so weakly you’re actually doing your position a disservice.
Your argument is very weak, you are just citing a company that sells vegan food for animals, a very clear conflict of interest.
For instance, I can also cite some Google PR page on how much they care about privacy.
“Our vegan cat food is totally safe and normal”, says the vegan cat food manufacturers.
You have to be a vegan to believe that bullshit lmao
So, by your logic, shouldn’t there be a bunch of malnourished and dying cats as a result of people buying this food and only letting their cats subsist on it?
Where are the outraged customers? Where are the lawsuits?
People who are dumb enough to spend extra money on vegan food for their carnivorous pets aren’t usually smart enough to realize it was the problem.
And as for the few that eventually figure it out, they’re smart enough to realize saying “I fed my carnivorous pets a vegan diet” does not reflect well on them.
So you have no evidence at all and are purely speculating. Gotcha
My evidence is vegans of Lemmy going up in arms against moderation because they deleted content about feeding a carnivorous animals a vegan diet.
That isn’t evidence that the aforementioned cat food will cause cats to become malnourished. That’s just you speculating to confirm your existing biases.
I appreciate your comments here, even if the people you’re trying to educate completely ignore you and downvote you because they have no response to the fact that vegan cat food exists.
I’m not vegan, but the hysterical ignorance espoused in this comment section is bewildering.
Shitty McDonald’s burgers exist, it doesn’t mean they are healthy and safe to eat.
I am not a vegan, but I do try to make food choices that are as ethical and healthy as I can… or at least as far as I can afford.
Cats are carnivores. Fact. This is not debatable. But I think you could also meet or exceed a cats nutritional needs from other sources. Whether those sources are readily available and whether a person is sufficiently meeting those needs… that’s another can of worms.
Generally, I’d argue that if you are hell-bent on a vegan diet, then you should not own carnivorous pets. No matter how well meaning you are, there is a significant chance that you will inflict harm on your pet, and that is unacceptable.
Vegans and pets are something different. Most vegans do not buy pets. Vegans almost exclusively adopt them.
It’s also not really “forcing”. You are trying out a new diet and closely monitoring whether they like it and if they are healthy. There are vegan pet food brands that contain all the required nutrients. It even smells like non vegan pet food. It’s actual research that went into this.
You can hate on all the stupid vegans that would force pets to eat salad while being malnourished and when they put their believes before the needs of the cat. But that goes against the common vegan saying: “as far as is possible and practicable”. It’s also the reason why these topics are discussed among vegans, to learn what is possible and what isn’t.
I think many people forget that vegans do care about animals, and often try to point out some possible hypocrisy when they are in fact the biggest hypocrites.
I hope some people will understand. In this modern age we can even deliver all the required nutrients to people trough IV. We’re much more advanced than this stupid cavemen mentality.
Anyways, thanks for reading. Yes I am vegan. I’ll probably get downvoted but that’s fine.
It’s also not really “forcing”. You are trying out a new diet and closely monitoring whether they like it and if they are healthy
Ignoring the rest of the post, if you control 100% of what a cat eats and then change what that cat may and must eat, that is 100% forcing something.
You do realize that giving them regular pet feed would fall under that as well?
Yes; I never said anything to the contrary.
Yet, you fail to realise that cats are natural predators. They will often hunt and eat their prey. What are you going to do about that? And there’s a reason nobody follows a diet of multi vitamins and IV fluid. It’s not healthy in the long term.
Lmao. They can still do that though?
It’s not like when you give them vegan pet feed you don’t allow them to go outside anymore…
Very weird take you got there.
Not to mention cats don’t even hunt, except for some birds and mice that they don’t eat.
Stay away from my pets.
You might be surprised at how much corn, grains, and other non-meat stuff there is in cat food. Particularly in cheap dry kibble that nobody typically bats an eye at someone feeding to their cat.
This conversation just seems so weird to me. The number of people who feed their cats anything similar to what they’d be eating in the wild is minuscule.
Meat isn’t some magic substance, biological chemical reactions turns grass into cows. That you think you can’t take those nutrients and make them bioavailable to an obligate carnivore is absurd. Ever seen an impossible burger?
And if you think the cruelty stems from the idea that cats wouldn’t like it, I gotta say. I have my cat on an expensive grain free meat heavy diet. And I know for a fact that he goes crazy for the cheap shitty corn based purina kibble. He has busted into other people’s homes to steal kibble from their cats.
So is it cruel for me to feed him a more nature based diet when it’s clear he prefers corn based trash?
I don’t see any reason why a functional vegan cat food couldn’t exist.
The comments in here are unbelievable. This post was about the systemic moderation issues that lead to the incident, the team’s response to it, and how to deal with such a problems in the future.
Half the comments: CATS CAN’T EAT VEGAN
The other half: CATS CAN TOO EAT VEGAN
There are people here who need to go back to fucking reddit.
go back to fucking reddit
Yeah, fuck reddit, and fuck u/spez.
Er, am I doing this right?
Difficulty level of Reddit is too high, since people would actually need to, you know, read stuff, in order to have “read it.”
The question is at the root of which moderator’s actions are correct. There’s a reactionary bias from tons of Reddit-fugees that came out of vegan bashing and anti-vegan hysteria which we see crop up repeatedly.
It can be difficult to distinguish between people sincere, abet misguided, beliefs and outright trolls. And moderation takes a significant temporal and emotional toll. “Vegans are killing their pets/kids!!!” is a popular panic phrase intended to gin up hostility. Consequentaly, the mods in these communities are playing endless wack-a-mole with trolls who just want to conflate veganism with an esoteric form of cruelty.
Establishing a bright line of appropriate content is important for good moderation. But to know where that line is, you need some degree of objection information.
Which brings us back to the fundamental question of whether safe, reliable vegan cat food exists (spoilers: it’s been around for decades). But if you don’t accept that premise, you’re going to see any mod censorship as some diabolical cat killing agenda.
It’s not just a diet thing, it’s a matter of animal abuse.
I don’t doubt that there are options out there for people that want to feed their pets a vegan-friendly diet, but given that cats primarily eat meat the idea of promoting a vegan diet that isn’t heavily monitored and noted by their vet is an awful look for the vegan community and Lemmy. You absolutely cannot expect people to just treat this as a moderation issue, because at its most fundamental level it’s about whether lemmy.world supports content that is harmful to animals.
I said it elsewhere here, and since people don’t like it being raised I’ll say it again: shit like this wouldn’t fly on Reddit. Lemmy has a poor reputation on the Fediverse for housing extreme opinions, and this debacle really won’t help its reputation as a fed-friendly alternative to Reddit. Saying “go back to Reddit” just highlights the problem more, and is probably why there are plenty of posts on the Fediverse asking why Lemmy is so hostile, or why it’s nowhere near as friendly as many communities on Mastodon.
Here’s an idea, why don’t you save your argument for one of the myriad posts that have popped up discussing this very subject of whether or not cats can eat vegan or not and whether or not that is abuse.
But here and now within this post is a discussion over whether or not mods acted recklessly and whether or not there is a need for better guidelines on what is and isn’t allowed. Which were discussed in the post that you apparently didn’t read.
At no point did the author of this post open up the floor to discuss whether or not veganism is good, bad, or ugly for cats.
Because the question at the time wasn’t does lemmy.world support potential animal abuse. Whether it is or isn’t isn’t really the topic here, but if one side feels strongly against the potential for abuse, there’s a question regarding lax moderation and what an instance supports.
Again, it’s not a great look for a community that isn’t looked upon favourably across the fediverse. Again, I’m sure it is possible that someone has created a vegan-friendly brand of cat food, but you have to assume that the topic of potential abuse will come up. Is an online forum the appropriate place to be giving what could be harmful advice that could endanger an animal if the wrong brand is pushed?
Vegans win this time.
In the end, vegans are always going to win, because a vegan way of life is one (but not the only) precondition for ways of life that are actually sustainable.
There could be a technical fix for this. Lemmy could use a system that requires certain moderator and/or admin actions to require a 2-person authorization, and temporarily put the action in an “under review” state for a set amount of time.
For instance, an admin removing content would replace it with a placeholder for up to 2 days. If another admin accepts the change then the comment is removed. If no other admin responds then the content is put back.
This is pretty much Change Management.
Would be fine as an option that could be enabled, especially for larger communities, but an instance run by a single person wouldn’t be able to host communities if it was a built in requirement for all communities.
Of course.
You can’t fix people problems with technical solutions. I know tech folk like to think they can, but it really doesn’t work. Sometimes you simple needs some rules, guides, and a good book to slap someone with.
Solid idea. One consequence of this would be the possible delay in removing material that really should be removed as fast as possible, though.
Which is why the content would get masked until a 2nd person approves or it gets unmasked.
Right, but that content will still exist server side.
Change Management can account for that, but if it’s truely that big of a problem then there might be legal or other compelling reasons to keep the content server side and inaccessible.
In theory a good idea, but there is lots of content that needs to be gone serverside asap - either because it’s CP, otherwise illegal, spam that clogs down the Fediverse/can even be used to DoS a server,etc.
Illegal things probably need to be retained as evidence. It’s many times illegal to remove evidence if you think it’s possibly relevant.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’d consult one about this.
It depends very much on the legislation - in many legislations it is absolutely illegal to retain it.
Anyway, there are more than enough non-evidence class materials that need to be removed asap.
A slight modification, it could be implemented as a suggested action where the admins (or mods) can ask for a second opinion when they feel it’s appropriate.
That way urgent actions can happen right away, and potentially controversial actions can be discussed. It should solve the problem without forcing a specific workflow
More backstage work for admins who are NOT paid. No.
Personally, I like this idea. But it can be equally abused if two admins colluded to agree with each other. But, I think it’s at least better than nothing.
I would imagine this would need to be done at the software level to be most effective. You should request this sort of feature from the Lemmy team to integrate into both the backend and the UI.
If you do create issues for this request, you should post back here (or whatever related community) so people can upvote the issues to show the devs we really want the feature.
I think a 3 person team is better. 1 mod/admit marks something for moderation. 2 other mods need to agree to mod. If 1 of the mods disagrees, it stays.
This is inspired by true events in September 1983, where a russian command post in charge of their nuclear weapons caught on radar 4 incoming missles, supposedly fired from America. The captain in charge turned his key to fire every nuke they had at America. The second in command turned his key as well. The third in command refused. His logic was if America was going to fire nukes, why fire exactly 4 nukes and only 4 nukes, all targeting the same location? Would it not make sense to deplay thousands if you’re trying for a surprise ambush?
Those nukes that America fired? Clouds. The Earth was at just the right rotation for 30 minutes to confuse the russian radar into interpreting 4 missle shaped clouds as solid objects.
America was almost turned to dust for no reason, 2 weeks before I was born. Because of some happy fluffy white clouds, that even Bob Ross will admit almost DID cause an accident!
So yeah. Maybe we do a 3 mod system.
This reads like more misinformation so I had to look it up. I’m seeing that it was one person that made this decision.
I’m replying to someone suggesting that in the future it should be a 2 man process. I’m suggesting it be a 3 man process. Nobody is suggesting this already happened.
We’re not dealing with nukes.
But any standard change management process can do that. I don’t think 3 people need to be involved in most matters.
Well, on the Internet, damage to reputation might be irreversible, but damage to content won’t.
Upvoting and commenting for visibility, this is a great idea. Though concur with snooggums below that it would need to be an opt-in option.
Animal abuse isn’t an opinion. It’s evil. And malice by ignorance that could be corrected is malice.
Stop apologizing for doing your jobs. We all have opinions and raise them loudly in the Fediverse so I understand your natural reaction and want to communicate well. But IMHO this is troll feeding. If they posted in favor of human genocide, you’d close a ticket, and move on, not write an apology for taking it down.
https://www.benevo.com/vegan-cat-food-from-benevo/
Benevo Cat foods contain all the nutrients an adult cat needs, including a wide range of vitamins (including A, B, D, E, K), essential fatty acids and taurine, without the need for slaughterhouse meat. Although obligate carnivores in the wild, domestic cats still need nutrients they would normally source from prey. Thankfully Benevo Cat contains all those nutrients in a bioavailable kibble.
Benevo Cat is a professional cat food, created by Benevo in 2005, formulated and checked by independent animal nutritionists to meet the AAFCO(USA) and FEDIAF(Europe) guidelines for animal nutrition.
We’ve had safe and healthy variants of vegan cat food for 20 years. Trying to elevate the question to animal abuse speaks entirely to personal ignorance.
It’s still forcing YOUR diet on a helpless animal. They eat meat.
End of story.
Thank you for your measured, reasonable, and frankly reassuring response. I appreciate that moderation is a very difficult task and I want to thank all of you, both for your work and for how you’ve acted when faced with a difficult situation. This is exactly how I would’ve hoped this response would be. I do hope that your resolution to discuss these things beforehand can help avoid similar issues in the future.
Thanks for understanding. It took the whole team a lot of work to get to this point 🙏
I don’t agree with the outcome of THIS situation, but I DO agree with the idea that mods and admins are not gods on the fediverse. I like the concept of checks and balances, even if I disagree with the ruling. The fact that it’s not a god complex one person rule is better than what reddit has.
That being said, you can be vegan, but give your cat some chicken! Cats LOVE chicken! Why would you want to deprive your cat of what they love? If they were neighborhood cats, they would instinctually be killing birds ALL THE TIME!!! So it’s not YOU killing the chicken. It’s your cat. Don’t like it? Don’t get a cat.
I don’t get a dog. Why? Because I’m never home. That would be unfair for a dog to just NEVER get to go for a walk, just because I’m home like 10 hours a day. And even that is mostly sleeping. Wouldn’t be fair to the dog. Just like it’s not fair to the cat to never have chicken.
Can we not relaunch the argument that turned into a black hole, pulling everyone on Lemmy into a hellish void? Let’s keep the cat diet discussion in c/vegan, c/cats or some other devoted sublemmy.
Cats love their beef food. It’s not normal for cats to eat cows.
All the vegans I meet in real life are normal ass people.
Because those are normal people. “Lifestyle” communities on the internet invariably devolve into groupthink cesspits of the most unhinged followers of that lifestyle.
Veganism is the worst. It’s like the terminally online crazies can telepathically detect anyone discussing veganism and descend en-mass.
You might get the impression that we are lol
deleted by creator
You might get the impression that we are lol
A vegan bot; now I’ve seen it all.
deleted by creator
By the beard of Zeus, what a horrible day to be literate and morbidly curious.
These comments feel like a basketball game, except there’s a wall in the middle and teams are just scoring points on their own hoop. Also every two comments someone throws a shovelful of shit over the wall.
Yea I just randomly went to go look at all posts I stead of my subscribed feed for a change and saw this, I have no prior clu of what the hell happened but I’m morbidly curious too lol
This is one of those topics where everyone involved has strong convictions
@lwadmin For full disclosure I agree with rooki on this topic.
I may have missed it in the write up but I think the vegan mods needlessly escalated the situation by trying to ban and remove comments from an admin.
I am not saying I always agree with rooki but I respect his job as an admin.
The mods of vegan treated him disrespectfully in his capacity as an admin by deleting and banning him.
You should cover this in your terms of service.
The mods acted disrespectfully? The admins admitted they were in the wrong; it was the mods on the receiving end of this. People in positions of authority should be able to deescalate things. That’s not what happened. People in positions of authority should not be able to use “They disrespected me” as a reason to escalate. If you think that sentence applies to mods but not admins, you’ve got a really dissonant way of looking at things.
The mods deleted the admins comment and tried to ban him from the community. That’s a no no in my book.
If the mods felt rooki was wrong, they shouldn’t have tried to display a power trip with their actions. They should have escalated to other admins.
Rooki deescalated by removing them as mods. That stopped their childish behavior.
Rooki deescalated
If that’s your definition of deescalating, you’re either disingenuous or an idiot. Enter way, you’re not worth further attention. I would suggest you actually look up deescalation so it’s not so obvious next time in either case p
What’s crazy is all the admins had to do was look at that subs modlog prior to the controversy to see this was all most likely a troll:
https://lemmy.world/modlog/1309?page=3&actionType=ModRemoveComment
That mod team doesn’t give two shits about “free speech”.
Let them migrate to their own instance, changing all of lemmy.world’s rules and making all those sticky threads is about as much as you could feed a troll.
The mods at the lemmy world vegan community don’t see things the same way. From this post:
“Today the lemmy.world admins made a follow up post about the incident where the admin Rooki interfered with moderation of this community in a way which was determined to be against lemmy.world TOS and factually incorrect. Throughout this incident there has been no communication with me, nor to my knowledge any of of the other moderators of this community. Rooki quitely undid his actions and edited his post to admit fault however there was no public acknowledgement of this from him. In fact I wasn’t even told I was reinstated as a mod which is quite funny.”
“The lemmy.world admins’ response appears more focused on managing their own reputations and justifying similar actions in the future than providing a good environment for vegans, and other similarly maligned groups. Their statements about wanting to handle misinformation and overreach better in the future ring a bit hollow when they won’t take actions to address the anti-vegan circlejerks under their update posts which abound with misinformation and disinformation.”
“The legalese written basically allows for the same thing to happen, and that if it does the admin decision is to stand while moderators have to quietly resolve the conflict at the admins’ leisure. Presumably with a similarly weak public apology and barely visible record correction after the fact.”
Codified anti-vegan bias based on reactionary views? That’s unfortunate. Glad I’m not on that instance.
Lunatic vegans on lemmy? No way dude
good look
I’ve heard evidence that it was a fairly toxic community there anyway.
We should be careful to avoid creating communities that are echo chambers. Ie, it should be a community discussing veganism, not a vegan safe space where people abuse you if you disagree
Otherwise, in 5 years time you end to with scenarios similar to reddit or on beehaw
I left beehaw because I half agreed with the community, someone in a “safe space” abused me, and a beehaw admin overlooked that abuse and instead insisted I was starting a flight (simply because I didn’t 100% agree with the community it seemed)
We also risk scenarios where vaping or drug communities could grow and become toxic in the same way. We also should be as scientific as possible and avoid becoming Facebook.
I’m not sure about the cat thing, but to me, it seems like it could at least be used as animal abuse
We should be careful to avoid creating communities that are echo chambers.
I’m afraid that ship is already sailed, foundered, and is well on the way to the bottom in a lot of communities.
When it comes to spicy topics, many communities on Lemmy feel incredibly close-minded and hostile to opposing views.
We should be careful to avoid creating communities that are echo chambers
From what I see we are already echo chambers on the most pressing topics.
Interesting, first time I hear this about Beehaw
It’s not a common scenario probably.
But I felt at least one admin was so focused on protecting at least 1 minority, that they were willing to overlook bad behavior by some of them. Or maybe they knew that if they told them to act better that the community would see them as a threat
In fact, the person who exclaimed that I “wanted to kill the entire minority” simply because I didn’t 100% agree with one thing also I realized colored my opinion early of the rest of Lemmy on another thread by calling it a cesspool
It’s actually the opposite. People are free to discuss on other servers, and I realize that lots of the thing that person was saying, was actually bad for discussions except in a way that benefits them directly (even disregarding other people in their minority).
The crazy part is I have plenty of friends who are part of that minority lol
They were a mod too, so over time, some of these communities will only develop stronger and stronger opinions which are self reinforcing and rise to the top in these safe spaces and basically become another femaledatingstrategy like environment
