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.
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 @[email protected] 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, @[email protected] or the instance admin, @[email protected] . If you don’t feel that adequate, feel free to kick up a fuss at [email protected] where I’m sure @[email protected] will ensure it gets the attention it deserves.
But please let’s stop with the brigading nonsense.
i chose a guy who i am tacitly acknowledging to be a spreader of misinformation “to fact check and discuss things” as a moderator in a public health forum. no, my choice of him as moderator does not mean i think he is a good choice for moderator. no, i do not intend to acknowledge the widespread comparisons to rfk. downvoting this statement, discussing this issue in non-approved communities (my approval) constitutes brigading(according to me). oh, and no drama in the drama community.
I thought this was fedilore, not let’s create pointless fedidrama?
People need to know what they’re getting into. The purpose of this community is shed light on the inner-workings of the fediverse.
at least don’t edit out his name.
Rule 2 states that: “When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.”
I was the person that nominated @[email protected] as a moderator. I nominated him because he’s active and engaging in the comments.
That is not sound basis to appoint someone. It should be based on a trustworthy background. I do not believe you and the other person have properly vetted their background.
Being a moderator isn’t an endorsement of anyone’s opinions.
Yes, it is you’re giving them the ability to manage the community displaying your level of trust into their demeanour.
But please let’s stop with the brigading nonsense.
All the posts are brigading according to that logic. Where I have stated to “invade the community in question?”
To be honest, there’s quite a lot of inter instance accusations happening now between [email protected] , [email protected] and [email protected] that I might take a break from those communities for a bit.
Thanks! It’s not even really stressful, just a bit overwhelming. I’m going to create yet another alt for inter instance snak, and keep this one for ‘meta Fediverse building’ communities
So you’re only interested in someone that pushes engagement and not in who’s actually fit to be a mod?
You’ve also called out other users for not having post history in that community. Is engagement your only concern? Wether or not they post, their critiscism is valid and holds water.
I don’t understand how “I’ve felt he’s pushing an agenda” isn’t an instant disqualifier from moderation.
Nominating him for moderator is an endorsement of their opinions, you’ve granted them power therefore you hold the opinion they’re of sound judgement.
I’m hesitant to post in a 'health" community that’s more interested in driving up engagement than combatting pseudoscience and misinfo
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.
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.
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 [email protected] 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.
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.
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.
The user should be a commentator not a moderator,
I think so too
backgrounds are important to consider in predicting how they will shape the community
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.
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.
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.
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
I have only ever seen jet say it worked for them, and they are working with their doctor, and everyone’s body is different. unlike “anti-vaxxers, fruitians, naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists and conspiracy theorists” jet encourages people to talk with their doctor, read peer reviewed studies, and understand research methodologies.
VERY SELECTIVE peer reviewed papers, by necessity. He is using motivated reasoning. He would not be able to reach his intended conclusions if he used the best available research.
Okay, I see what it is now, you’re a vegan and he’s all about keto. But for someone kicking up a fuss, don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous when you have more posts complaining about him here than you do in the actual community itself. Can we not all live in harmony, regardless of our opinions on how we source protein?
How does that relate to disingenuous? It’s important that people know the health effects of what they’re pushing. It’s crucial to regularly rebuke misinformation online.
You say I’m only criticizing them. That’s misrepresenting the situation since I have criticized other unsavoury characters here.
That is a false equivalence as we share the same healthcare system that doesn’t need the extra strain because some people are choosing to eat fad diets such as the atkins one or the carnivore one.
Another ad hominem. You’re refusing to engage with the arguments and instead attacking the person presenting them. Fucking shameful. How can you stand the humiliation.
What arguments, it’s like someone complaining about roads when they live on a boat and haven’t ever touched land. As the admin of the instance has said, should Jet fall short, they’ll remove him. Until then, either be an active member of the community or ignore it.
So you make ad hominem attacks? That’s not a rational response. That’s something a manipulator does. While accusing others of being disingenuous. Clean up your shit.
Not vegan and the concerns raised in this thread are legitimate. Embarrassing takes and reeks of trying to dismiss and distract from an obviously bad appointment.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Rules
Any drama must be posted as an observer, you cannot post drama that you are involved with.
When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.
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
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 @[email protected] 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, @[email protected] or the instance admin, @[email protected] . If you don’t feel that adequate, feel free to kick up a fuss at [email protected] where I’m sure @[email protected] will ensure it gets the attention it deserves.
But please let’s stop with the brigading nonsense.
-a very serious person
edit: it’s not a “drama-starting community.”
Suddenly this all makes sense.
People need to know what they’re getting into. The purpose of this community is shed light on the inner-workings of the fediverse.
Rule 2 states that: “When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.”
That is not sound basis to appoint someone. It should be based on a trustworthy background. I do not believe you and the other person have properly vetted their background.
Yes, it is you’re giving them the ability to manage the community displaying your level of trust into their demeanour.
All the posts are brigading according to that logic. Where I have stated to “invade the community in question?”
To be honest, there’s quite a lot of inter instance accusations happening now between [email protected] , [email protected] and [email protected] that I might take a break from those communities for a bit.
Sorry you’re finding things stressful at the moment. Sending 🤗
Thanks! It’s not even really stressful, just a bit overwhelming. I’m going to create yet another alt for inter instance snak, and keep this one for ‘meta Fediverse building’ communities
Found this one back, here we go
That’s a good instance choice!
So you’re only interested in someone that pushes engagement and not in who’s actually fit to be a mod?
You’ve also called out other users for not having post history in that community. Is engagement your only concern? Wether or not they post, their critiscism is valid and holds water.
I don’t understand how “I’ve felt he’s pushing an agenda” isn’t an instant disqualifier from moderation.
Nominating him for moderator is an endorsement of their opinions, you’ve granted them power therefore you hold the opinion they’re of sound judgement.
I’m hesitant to post in a 'health" community that’s more interested in driving up engagement than combatting pseudoscience and misinfo
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 [email protected] 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.
I have only ever seen jet say it worked for them, and they are working with their doctor, and everyone’s body is different. unlike “anti-vaxxers, fruitians, naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists and conspiracy theorists” jet encourages people to talk with their doctor, read peer reviewed studies, and understand research methodologies.
VERY SELECTIVE peer reviewed papers, by necessity. He is using motivated reasoning. He would not be able to reach his intended conclusions if he used the best available research.
he encourages people to understand the methodology and it’s limits. I think he’s an honest broker.
Okay, I see what it is now, you’re a vegan and he’s all about keto. But for someone kicking up a fuss, don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous when you have more posts complaining about him here than you do in the actual community itself. Can we not all live in harmony, regardless of our opinions on how we source protein?
How does that relate to disingenuous? It’s important that people know the health effects of what they’re pushing. It’s crucial to regularly rebuke misinformation online.
You say I’m only criticizing them. That’s misrepresenting the situation since I have criticized other unsavoury characters here.
That is a false equivalence as we share the same healthcare system that doesn’t need the extra strain because some people are choosing to eat fad diets such as the atkins one or the carnivore one.
You’re kicking up a fuss about a community you don’t contribute to. Find something better to do with your time please. 🙏🏾
Another ad hominem. You’re refusing to engage with the arguments and instead attacking the person presenting them. Fucking shameful. How can you stand the humiliation.
What arguments, it’s like someone complaining about roads when they live on a boat and haven’t ever touched land. As the admin of the instance has said, should Jet fall short, they’ll remove him. Until then, either be an active member of the community or ignore it.
So you make ad hominem attacks? That’s not a rational response. That’s something a manipulator does. While accusing others of being disingenuous. Clean up your shit.
shameful ad hominem. just shameful.
Not vegan and the concerns raised in this thread are legitimate. Embarrassing takes and reeks of trying to dismiss and distract from an obviously bad appointment.
I think it’s fine. he’s not banning any on topic discussion. what’s the issue
Bait used to be believable
if you don’t care to support your position, I have no reason to believe it.
You are letting the tiger into the kindergarten as long as it pinky swears not to eat any children. This is a terrible idea that will harm people.
Carnivore dieters do often like to compare themselves to big cats
jet is a lemmy user, and lemmy communities are not kindergartners.
Nah it’s a very good comparison.
saying it doesn’t make it true
saying it doesn’t make it true
Thank you for jumping in
Very reasonable. Thank you for your magnificent administration.