A site which seeks to signal-boost neo-Nazism – an ideology that fundamentally hurts society’s most vulnerable people as fuel for power consolidation – is thoroughly antithetical to veganism and to its mission to exclude all forms of cruelty to animals – which humans are – for any purpose. Thus, links to and screenshots of this site will not be platformed on /c/vegan. I keep a personal rule that enforcing rules ex post facto is wrong except in extreme circumstances where a major oversight has allowed something clearly heinous or a loophole has been deliberately exploited, and thus I’m putting this here now. I have not brought this up with the other moderators, but this seems uncontroversial, especially among people who seek to give a voice to the voiceless. This goes for any other site where neo-Nazism and its component hateful ideolgoies such as racism and homophobia are deliberately, obviously, and systematically normalized.
Edit: A user asked about screenshots, and having thought a lot on it just to consider other viewpoints, I’m resolute that sharing screenshots causes the exact same problems that sharing links does. Thus, this post is now about links and screenshots.
Based
As a vegan, I approve
Had a strong hunch you’d be onboard, veganpizza. lol
I agree with this change! Thank you Thetechnician!
Hey Aqua, no problem! I’m sorry I didn’t DM you; I didn’t know at the time that you were a moderator. I knew veganpizza and jerkface would approve of this (I’m like 99.99% sure), but I would’ve sent you a message asking your thoughts otherwise since I knew almost nothing about you.
I do not approve. If someone posts a screenshot of someone saying something on X, they should be temp banned unless they provide a link that authenticates their claim.
Providing proof is not the same as supporting something.
Also, we can link to xcancel or other twitter alt frontends
If someone posts a screenshot of someone saying something on X, they should be temp banned unless they provide a link that authenticates their claim.
This is so disengaged with the rationale in the post that I legitimately don’t even understand what you’re saying. This isn’t about fighting mis/disinformation (although indirectly it is since Twitter is a cesspool of it); it’s about not harming our fellow man by normalizing and platforming neo-Nazism and other forms of bigotry. Temp banned for what? Nobody’s getting temp banned for posting Twitter stuff; their post/comment would be removed, they’d get a DM telling them about the rule, and then they could be temp-banned if they continue to do it multiple times thereafter knowing the rule exists.
Providing proof is not the same thing as supporting something
Name literally one instance where someone would want to reference Twitter for proof of anything and why this could plausibly be important enough to this community to warrant hegemonizing fascism. Again, I don’t even know what this comment is talking about.
we can link to xcancel or other twitter alt frontends
That only serves to legitimize Twitter as a hegemony. It’s the same exact problem just with a layer of misdirection. What we do as vegans is identify a problem causing harm to our fellow animal and refuse to participate in it, not come up with some up with some convoluted bullshit to soothe our cognitive dissonance that lets us pretend we’re boycotting when we aren’t.
On the good side: an activist org captures photos of animal abuse by some major company and posts it on X.
On the bad side: some evil org posts something clearly indicating that they’ve committed a crime
Both are worth to post here. And we always need to verify whatever we post.
Posting a screenshot of any website without posting a link to that website (for authenticity and accessibility) is temp ban worthy.
Screenshots to Twitter aren’t allowed either. If an activist org “captures photos of animal abuse by some major company” (I’m assuming good faith that you’re actually vegan and not just concern trolling), then 1) that activist org shouldn’t be on a neo-Nazi cesspool like Twitter (let alone exclusively), and we shouldn’t be rewarding that behavior, and 2) every vegan here already knows about the horrors of the meat industry. Animal abuse is going on fucking literally everywhere; the vegans already know it and have seen mountains of traumatizing evidence, and if anyone not vegan can watch the documentary Dominion (2018) and not understand that abuse is happening and is bad, then photos from a random activist org on Twitter aren’t going to move the needle. Even if you successfully made the argument it would, there are thousands of credible images and videos of animal abuse to draw from outside of Twitter. While there’s merit to keeping track of ongoing abuse, the positives don’t even nearly outweigh the negatives of platforming neo-Nazis, let alone because the idea that this scenario would happen in the first place seems farfetched. What vegan activist orgs do you follow that aren’t already on another platform than Twitter? Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Meanwhile, what the fuck is this second one? “Some evil org posts something clearly indicating that they’ve committed a crime” ??? Yeah, all those evil organizations going and documenting their own animal product-related crimes on Twitter, which is somehow not reported by any third-party news outlet. Nah, it’s gotta be a link to Twitter so we can expose all those evil orgs for their crimes they apparently blatantly publicize anyway and show everyone what’s up. This is why I said in the first paragraph I’m desperately trying to assume you’re not concern trolling, because this is the flimsiest, most contrived pretext for keeping a neo-Nazi platform I could possibly imagine.
Good decision! I hope more comms make the same one.
Holy crap, we have found common ground
I have not brought this up with the other moderators, but this seems uncontroversial, especially among people who seek to give a voice to the voiceless.
I agree this is the right policy to establish and a pretty uncontroversial take, especially in a vegan community on Lemmy.
That said, as someone with a tiny bit of experience in community building, I’d generally recommend at least a cursory heads up for the people who have to enforce the new rule - let them be a part of the process!
Cheers on taking a stand against hate!
Don’t get me wrong, the other moderators don’t have to take moderative action against this if they don’t see it as worth their time to enforce; I’ll be around for that. If it had been anything even somewhat more controversial, I would’ve DM’d them collectively, and I mentioned this hadn’t been run by the other mods in case this was an idea they wanted to scrap.
What I do know of the other moderators told me they’d be enthused about the idea: gredo and iGxC aren’t around anymore to my knowledge; veganpizza who’s been around longer than I have posted a video of Musk sieg heiling 10 hours ago; jerkface and I aren’t on good speaking terms after the incident with Beaver some months ago if you remember that, but one thing I’m entirely certain of is that they’re willing to take even drastic actions to speak truth to power; and Aqua I definitely should’ve DM’d since they and I don’t actually know each other yet. That last one is just plainly a fuck-up on my part since I didn’t realize there was a new moderator (moderation tools are very poor, including seemingly no proper notification of a new mod being added). Sorry, @Aqua@lemmy.vg.
I fully agree that this site should not be linked to, it should not have our traffic and not make any money off of us. However: are screenshots accepted for notable/newsworthy content?
I was giving this some thought before you asked, which is why the post just specifies links. On Wikipedia, we have this understanding with deprecated sources like the Daily Mail that anything worthy of inclusion in an article will reasonably be covered in other actually reliable sources. I think basically any notable or newsworthy information about veganism can be found off of the Nazi platform. In the rare event it can’t, so be it; letting a neo-Nazi propaganda hub have a stranglehold on breaking news only perpetuates this problem, and it 1) advertises users to go there and 2) sends a message to users posting breaking news to Twitter/X that what they post there will still get signal-boosted off-site.
Thus, I’d say “no”.
Wow that is really solid reasoning, you can definitely tell you’ve been thinking on this.
Thanks for clarifying!
Thanks for asking! I was waffling back and forth for a while about whether that was an “extra” step or if it’s functionally the same action as removing links, and I’m confident now that it’s the exact same ethical issues at play with no meaningful distinction in terms of the overall harm.
based
Removed by mod
Responding to “nazis are bad” with a whataboutism… says a lot about anti-socialists.
Is it really that hard to agree that nazi-ism is bad?
Removed by mod
White people also caused all of those things in the past. That doesn’t mean white people inherently do those things. The vast majority of school shooters are straight white men, too, but that doesn’t mean all straight white men are school shooters.
The USSR was an authoritarian regime. Do you seriously not see that as a bigger issue, and more importantly the cause of all of the things you listed, than the workers owning the means of production???
Authoritarianism is antithetical to communism no matter how you slice it. It’s also curious that you’re still running defense for nazi-ism.
When the Communists have an election-interfering, hate-mongering, billionaire-backed, world-spanning social media company, then we can talk. Right now we are dealing with the Nazis at the gate.
lol
