I was shocked to see this log as it is the largest public health forum. No wonder why people are falling for pseudoscience and misinformation these days as problematic individuals are entrusted in important roles. I suppose it’s time for another migration.
This community has been locked, please see the discussion here. The original sidebar contents can be found below:
***
# Rules
1. Any drama must be posted as an observer, you cannot post drama that you are involved with.
2. When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.
3. The poster must have a credible post and comment history before submitting a piece of history. This is to avoid sock-puppetry and witch hunts.
The usual instance-wide rules also apply.
***
Chronicle the life and tale of the fediverse (+ matrix)
Largely a sublemmy about capturing drama, from fediverse spanning drama to just lemmy drama.
Includes lore like how a instance got it's name, how an instance got defederated, how an admin got doxxed, fedihistory etc
(New) This sub's intentions is to an archive/newspaper, as in preferably don't get into fights with each other or the ppl featured in the drama
Tags: fediverse news, lemmy news, lemmyverse
Partners:
* [midwest.social/c/Fediverse](https://midwest.social/c/fediverse)
* [Sub promo](https://lemmy.ca/c/communitypromo)
* [Fedizens](https://lemmy.ca/c/fedizens)
The original community icon is here
I thought this was fedilore, not let's create pointless fedidrama?
And if you're gonna try and start some shit, at least don't edit out his name.
I was the person that nominated @jet@hackertalks.com as a moderator. I nominated him because he's active and engaging in the comments.
Now regarding the pseudoscience and misinformation, that's exactly what the community exists for, to fact check and discuss things.
Being a moderator isn't an endorsement of anyone's opinions. I myself have clashed with Jet because I've felt he's attempted to push an agenda rather than address a topic. But my general impression of him is someone that's passionate about public health, especially weight loss and someone that makes the time to engage in comments.
If at any point you feel he's abusing his power, please report it to the primary mod in the community, @otter@lemmy.ca or the instance admin, @sal@mander.xyz . If you don't feel that adequate, feel free to kick up a fuss at !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com where I'm sure @Blaze@sopuli.xyz will ensure it gets the attention it deserves.
But please let's stop with the brigading nonsense.
Sure. I do not mind if people hold views that I disagree with, and I am very appreciative of anyone who chooses to donate some of their time and effort to moderation.
If someone abuses moderation powers to disrupt a local community, let me know and I'll try to understand the situation, have a chat with them, or possibly remove them if the situation does get out of hand. I am quite receptive to specific reports of specific actions, but I am not going to micro-manage users or mods and make assumptions/predictions about potential future behavior.
To be specific, in the context of moderating a "public health" community...
Acceptable: Mod or user posts often scientific articles discussing some positive relationship between the health in communities and eating meat. The user/mod may be biased to post articles that conform to their belief/opinion. If the content they post is high-quality and relevant to public health, and they do not overload the community with this single topic, then it is not a problem. Users are free to contribute on-topic however they'd like.
Unacceptable: Moderator removes posts about peer-reviewed scientific articles about public health benefits of vegan diets, a reasonable paper pointing out a risk in meat-eating diets, or bans users who make comments arguing against the conclusions or validity of a paper simply because the paper conforms to the mod's beliefs.
I think this is reasonable.
This isn't an user simply stating the benefits of eating meat but an individual pushing for an extremely restrictive diet that only allows meat, eggs, butter, dairy and water that has numerous issues such increased risks of all cause mortality, heart disease, cancers, constipations, muscle cramps, impaired kidneys.
https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/nutrition-fitness/a-meat-only-diet-is-not-the-answer-examining-the-carnivore-and-lion-diets/
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/the-carnivore-diet
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/may/11/the-carnivore-diet-all-meat-health-benefits-dangers
Following that same logic I suppose it's okay for anti-vaxxers, fruitians, naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists and conspiracy theorists to also join the team if they dedicate enough effort towards it. The user should be a commentator not a moderator, backgrounds are important to consider in predicting how they will shape the community. Health care professionals will avoid !publichealth@mander.xyz if they knew one of the moderators was regularly pushing misinformation. A science-based instance should prioritize proper information.
This is a disappointing response that will cause a schism in the community as I don't want people like RFK Jr. anywhere near positions of power when it comes to health.
I do take your feedback and other's seriously. I have looked into it and I also have my concerns about the fit, so I will talk to them.
If there is an example of mod abuse, a user report can lead to me taking direct action without contacting anyone. But a bad fit is not an emergency, we can talk and resolve it that way.
If they have positive/valuable interactions with members of the community, enforce the rules fairly, follow the rules, etc... Yes, I don't mind.
In this case, the moderator thinking that eating exclusively meat is healthy is not the reason why I think they might not be a good fit to mod that community.
I think so too
I do not disagree with you on this. When I said:
I am quite receptive to specific reports of specific actions, but I am not going to micro-manage users or mods and make assumptions/predictions about potential future behavior.
I am not saying that the background is not important. I am talking about delegation. The people who create communities and moderate them own them, not me. I (admin level) am not micro-managing the decisions of the community builders and running background checks on users. I respond to reports. In this case, I was responding to the user that tagged me, letting them know that I am alert and ready to respond to reports of mod abuse.
Why would it be disappointing? This is the drama community! Schism in the community is what we live for!!
No, but, really. Sorry to disappoint you, and I do appreciate you being attentive to the community and bringing this up.