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’ve had discussions with this user that basically ended with them agreeing to everything I said, but then they just went back and continued posting the same things the following day.
They’re reasonably knowledgeable and scientifically literate, but the issue is in always presenting keto diets as the definitive solution to all of your life’s problems. Keto is fine. It works and can solve many problems. But it is not the end-all be-all. I can’t tell if it’s a language issue or if they’re intentionally presenting things this way.
Is it this clown named “jet”? He basically posts non-stop about personal stories of people apparently “saved” by adopting a carnivore diet and bans anyone arguing against this pseudoscience no matter how civil the discussions. Wouldn’t wonder if he also has multiple accounts to counter the massive downvotes of his posts.
Dude will ban you for downvoting posts while pretending it’s for “blanket downvoting”. Im still surprised the blatant vote fixing has largely been ignored.
Moderators get to ban people for whatever reason strikes their fancy. That’s fine. But it would be helpful if the number of people on a ban list and the list itself were visible so people know what they are engaging with before they waste their time.
Not exactly a public ban list however Piefed has the subscriber/banned list available for moderators to review. The regular users would just have to check the modlogs.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I think the RFK Jr comparisons (unqualified, proponent pseudoscience) are apt. Most posts to [email protected] are credible health science information and posts about the benefits of a plant-based diet are pretty common. The person added as moderator hasn’t posted to that community recently AND - most importantly - looking at their profile they’re ALL ABOUT pseudoscience. Why one of the regular posters wasn’t appointed moderator seems odd. Is this appointment political? Otter usually makes good decisions, but this one seems very questionable. I hope credible users continue to monitor this situation. A .ca admin whiffing like this raises my antennae. It would be a big loss for us all for Lemmy to descend into a misinformation station
I’ve recently interacted with the newly appointed public health mod on Medicine Canada. Their scientific literacy is adequate for a commenter but not a mod
Crazy idea, but maybe you shouldn’t be taking health advice from random people on the Internet anyways. And your final line “well, guess it’s time for another migration” isn’t great either. You’re basically saying you just want an echo chamber to agree with you.
I don’t agree with carnivores or vegans, but I do find it interesting how vegans will complain about carnivores being biased and then post links to sites like veganlife.com and act like those aren’t biased too.
The simple fact is that you can’t do proper studies on diet. It relies far too much on self reporting since actual rigorous studies just can’t be done. You can’t control someone’s diet for 30 years to create experimental groups, control groups, etc. it’s just too much to ask. The vast majority of diet research is “best guesses” and “there seems to be a correlation here”.
Look at the old “Mediterranean diet” craze. The general consensus is that lifestyle(less sedentary life), better public healthcare, and a whole host of other factors related to people living in the Mediterranean are the causes of longer lifespans. But instead it gets boiled down to “eat like they do and you’ll be as healthy as them”.
Same with the whole “wine is good for you - look at the French!” Yeah, turns out alcohol isn’t really good for you at any level. It had a hell of a lot more to do with the lifestyle than specifically wine.
Or “people who stand barefoot in the grass for an hour a day are healthier” becoming “walking around barefoot in nature makes you healthier”. Nope. Being privileged enough that you CAN stand barefoot in the grass for an entire hour doing nothing else daily means you can afford many things that others cannot. It likely means that your baseline stress levels are way lower because you have the free time to be able to even do it. You think the person waking up at 5am to go to work until 5pm, to turn around and cook and clean, and then maybe get an hour to theirself before bed is able to just go stand in the grass for an hour? Again, it’s way more about socioeconomic status than “touching grass”.
The point is, health is an incredibly complex science and ANYONE claiming to have the magic solution is lying or just wrong. And that’s all I see here: “my magic solution is better than their magic solution. I don’t need to hear any conflicting ideas, just what I already believe.” Maybe fight them with facts and science of your own instead of “ewww carnivore!” Unless you want the rest of us to continue with “ewww, dumb vegan”.
Incorrect. There are various forms, two of the main ones are “it’s cruel to eat animals because they think/feel” and the other is “meat is unhealthy for the human body/an all plant diet is heathiest”. Yes, veganism typically lies more on the “cruelty free” part of the spectrum due to its refusal to consume eggs and other animal products as opposed to vegetarians, but there are versions that say those things are unhealthy too. Plus, vegans tend to take a larger view of “health” to include mental health(less stress from harming animals/“living in harmony with nature”) and the heath of the planet as a whole(“a healthy environment is a healthy place to exist”). Veganism is a lot more complex than just “I like animals”.
No, not incorrect. Veganism has nothing to do with human health. Veganism is a moral philosophy. If you don’t follow that moral philosophy, you’re not a vegan. It doesn’t matter what you eat. Any other usage is at best informal and usually incorrect.
It doesn’t matter if you pay your female employees the same as men; if you don’t believe that men and women are morally equivalent, then you’re not a feminist. It doesn’t matter if you eat nothing but lettuce and bananas; if you don’t believe that unnecessary cruelty and violence to nonhuman animals is wrong, then you’re not a vegan.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Someone should create a new community on Anarchist.nexus or Piefed.social
What’s stopping you?
It’s good to have a diversity of moderators however I may consider building the community up and then handing it off to someone else.
The Eldritch Curse.
There’s usually only so much activity on the platform for one community to stay active on a certain topic.
Money.
I’ve had discussions with this user that basically ended with them agreeing to everything I said, but then they just went back and continued posting the same things the following day.
They’re reasonably knowledgeable and scientifically literate, but the issue is in always presenting keto diets as the definitive solution to all of your life’s problems. Keto is fine. It works and can solve many problems. But it is not the end-all be-all. I can’t tell if it’s a language issue or if they’re intentionally presenting things this way.
Oh… I thought I was losing my mind talking to this person earlier.
Oh well.
Are mods gatekeepers of facts, or there mainly to ensure people are civil and respectful of people?
I’d want someone to gatekeep on writing, but …
…not this guy.
Is it this clown named “jet”? He basically posts non-stop about personal stories of people apparently “saved” by adopting a carnivore diet and bans anyone arguing against this pseudoscience no matter how civil the discussions. Wouldn’t wonder if he also has multiple accounts to counter the massive downvotes of his posts.
Dude will ban you for downvoting posts while pretending it’s for “blanket downvoting”. Im still surprised the blatant vote fixing has largely been ignored.
Moderators get to ban people for whatever reason strikes their fancy. That’s fine. But it would be helpful if the number of people on a ban list and the list itself were visible so people know what they are engaging with before they waste their time.
Not exactly a public ban list however Piefed has the subscriber/banned list available for moderators to review. The regular users would just have to check the modlogs.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I think the RFK Jr comparisons (unqualified, proponent pseudoscience) are apt. Most posts to [email protected] are credible health science information and posts about the benefits of a plant-based diet are pretty common. The person added as moderator hasn’t posted to that community recently AND - most importantly - looking at their profile they’re ALL ABOUT pseudoscience. Why one of the regular posters wasn’t appointed moderator seems odd. Is this appointment political? Otter usually makes good decisions, but this one seems very questionable. I hope credible users continue to monitor this situation. A .ca admin whiffing like this raises my antennae. It would be a big loss for us all for Lemmy to descend into a misinformation station
I’ve recently interacted with the newly appointed public health mod on Medicine Canada. Their scientific literacy is adequate for a commenter but not a mod
For example, on Why are so many young men struggling with erectile dysfunction?
This is their initial comment. Does it sound like they’re expressing a personal opinion or citing scientific evidence?
After I press them to cite some evidence for their assertion, here’s how they respond.
This person should be a Mod for a public health community?! Good grief. What is this, the US government?
Not really conducive to discussions when we don’t even know who you’re talking about.
It’s jet. I’ve had the misfortune of interacting with them before.
Crazy idea, but maybe you shouldn’t be taking health advice from random people on the Internet anyways. And your final line “well, guess it’s time for another migration” isn’t great either. You’re basically saying you just want an echo chamber to agree with you.
I don’t agree with carnivores or vegans, but I do find it interesting how vegans will complain about carnivores being biased and then post links to sites like veganlife.com and act like those aren’t biased too.
The simple fact is that you can’t do proper studies on diet. It relies far too much on self reporting since actual rigorous studies just can’t be done. You can’t control someone’s diet for 30 years to create experimental groups, control groups, etc. it’s just too much to ask. The vast majority of diet research is “best guesses” and “there seems to be a correlation here”.
Look at the old “Mediterranean diet” craze. The general consensus is that lifestyle(less sedentary life), better public healthcare, and a whole host of other factors related to people living in the Mediterranean are the causes of longer lifespans. But instead it gets boiled down to “eat like they do and you’ll be as healthy as them”.
Same with the whole “wine is good for you - look at the French!” Yeah, turns out alcohol isn’t really good for you at any level. It had a hell of a lot more to do with the lifestyle than specifically wine.
Or “people who stand barefoot in the grass for an hour a day are healthier” becoming “walking around barefoot in nature makes you healthier”. Nope. Being privileged enough that you CAN stand barefoot in the grass for an entire hour doing nothing else daily means you can afford many things that others cannot. It likely means that your baseline stress levels are way lower because you have the free time to be able to even do it. You think the person waking up at 5am to go to work until 5pm, to turn around and cook and clean, and then maybe get an hour to theirself before bed is able to just go stand in the grass for an hour? Again, it’s way more about socioeconomic status than “touching grass”.
The point is, health is an incredibly complex science and ANYONE claiming to have the magic solution is lying or just wrong. And that’s all I see here: “my magic solution is better than their magic solution. I don’t need to hear any conflicting ideas, just what I already believe.” Maybe fight them with facts and science of your own instead of “ewww carnivore!” Unless you want the rest of us to continue with “ewww, dumb vegan”.
Veganism isn’t about optimizing health though.
Incorrect. There are various forms, two of the main ones are “it’s cruel to eat animals because they think/feel” and the other is “meat is unhealthy for the human body/an all plant diet is heathiest”. Yes, veganism typically lies more on the “cruelty free” part of the spectrum due to its refusal to consume eggs and other animal products as opposed to vegetarians, but there are versions that say those things are unhealthy too. Plus, vegans tend to take a larger view of “health” to include mental health(less stress from harming animals/“living in harmony with nature”) and the heath of the planet as a whole(“a healthy environment is a healthy place to exist”). Veganism is a lot more complex than just “I like animals”.
No, not incorrect. Veganism has nothing to do with human health. Veganism is a moral philosophy. If you don’t follow that moral philosophy, you’re not a vegan. It doesn’t matter what you eat. Any other usage is at best informal and usually incorrect.
It doesn’t matter if you pay your female employees the same as men; if you don’t believe that men and women are morally equivalent, then you’re not a feminist. It doesn’t matter if you eat nothing but lettuce and bananas; if you don’t believe that unnecessary cruelty and violence to nonhuman animals is wrong, then you’re not a vegan.
Your gut feeling is not a source.
Update on this situation:
https://piefed.social/post/1232845
[email protected]
You might want to check with the instance admins to get lemmy-federate going, it’s currently blocked, that will help with your fanout.
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.”
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?”
Suddenly this all makes sense.
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!
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.
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.
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
Carnivore dieters do often like to compare themselves to big cats
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for jumping in
Very reasonable. Thank you for your magnificent administration.
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