Why is this a simple majority vote?

I’m OK with this. I have also noticed that anti-vegan discourse patterns are often non (or pseudo) scientific. In the broader context of climate action it is an important issue.

Thanks, these are very useful point to discuss.

First, on vagueness: you’re right that “anti-scientific reasoning patterns” sounds abstract if it’s not grounded. The intent isn’t to have mods decide “what is truth,” it’s to look for recognizable patterns of engagement over time, not isolated statements. While clearly anti science interactions can be removed immediately, decisions on bans or removing comments/posts which aren’t clear can use an accounts history to make a decision.

“I don’t trust corporations behind some vaccines”

That by itself wouldn’t fall under this. Skepticism about institutions—even strong skepticism—isn’t the issue. It becomes a problem only if it turns into a pattern like “therefore the science is invalid” without engaging the evidence itself. What you described (being vaccinated, accepting the science, but distrusting corporations) is actually a pretty normal position.

“I feel better after adding fish/seafood”

That also wouldn’t count. Personal experience is fine to share. It only becomes an issue if it’s used to dismiss broader evidence entirely (e.g., “therefore all plant-based nutrition research is wrong”) or if it’s repeatedly pushed as universal proof.

So no, mods wouldn’t be policing anecdotes or individual dietary choices.

Third, on enforcement:

This isn’t meant to be a hard, user-facing rule like “X is banned.” It’s closer to how mods already deal with bad-faith behavior in general—looking at patterns over time.

And you don’t need a “vegan mod” to do that. The standard isn’t “does this align with veganism,” it’s “is this person engaging in a way that’s recognizably good-faith and evidence-based?”

That’s something mods already judge in other contexts (misinformation, trolling, etc.).

“Policing what meat eaters say won’t turn them vegan”

I actually agree with that. The goal isn’t conversion. **Im not vegan. ** The goal is much narrower: maintaining a discussion space where conversations don’t get derailed into the same bad-faith patterns and people can actually have substantive discussions without it collapsing.

Trolling in general should be moderated, but the rules shouldn’t differ from topic to topic. If a discussion is good it is good, if it is bad it is bad.

How would you define a troll and whether someone is speaking in good faith? It’s very vibes based. I think someone bringing up plant’s feelings or their suffering is probably trolling (does actually happen even in this thread), saying they’ll eat double the hamburgers out of spite, even going as far to say vegans shouldn’t harm bacteria (taken from a comic that was posted recently) is trolling. Right now, bringing these things up to antagonize (even after haven been told these things are antagonistic) is not something that can be actioned against.

I don’t think this post challenges that.

This post is seeking to equalize moderator efforts in determining which discussions are good and which are bad by appealing to the same standards of moderation that the current FAF Team applies to other realms of discourse, notably vaccination, climate change, anti-fascism, etc.

This post is not about mods forcing vegan beliefs on FAF users. This post is about allowing vegan/anti-vegan discourse to flourish in a safe space with charitable exchanges of evidence and viewpoints. Users that announce their opinions on FAF platforms, and when pushed to explain or defend themselves use anecdotes, strawmans, troll tactics, or recoil by name-calling and attacking other’s credibility - avoiding discussion altogether around the facts at hand - would be against instance rules and subject to moderator action.

If anything, this post extends the same rules FAF mods use on other topics of discussion to veganism. It does not introduce special rules to discussions specifically around veganism.

I would not ban you or your carnivore community. I may be wrong (and honestly don’t feel like scrutinizing your history rn), but you don’t troll. We will never agree on veganism and your advocation of eating mostly meat, I am a moral/ethical vegan first and the rest of it is a bonus. While there were some seriously questionable things that got c/carnivore banned from .world, the problematic mod is gone afaik and I already have your communities blocked (as a user). We would be able to ban people who intentionally antagonize and troll vegans, and that would be a bonus for anyone tired of the hostility. Do you go into threads essentially antagonizing vegans with vegan bingo, because that is the problem here. If people wanted your community blocked and to be more aligned with our instance being more pro-vegan, that would be a different discussion.

it sounds like it would prohibit discussion of published research if it goes against pre-determined outcomes

A distinction needs to be made between good faith discussions of peer-reviewed, published research, and bad faith discussions of anecdotal evidence.

If you’re carnist, have scientific reasons to back up your beliefs, and are willing to have what might amount to sometimes confrontational conversations with vegans or at least vegan apologists that have their own scientific evidence, then I don’t think Fediverse Anarchist Flotilla (FAF) mods would have an issue with your presence in any db0/Anarchist Nexus forum.

Ultimately though, if you support carnivore communities, you consent to the hierarchical structures that place humans above animals which is fundamentally in conflict with anarchist principles of abolishing all hierarchies. This same thinking is why FAF mods have taken proactive and reactive stances against Zionists in the recent weeks and months. Zionism is a racist ideology that mythologizes Jewish supremacy over Native Arabian peoples, and results in real-world harm in the form of open air prisons, land stealing, genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, among other harms.

Zionism, however, is an INTRA species hierarchical philosophy. It is by humans and between humans. Carnivorism is an INTER species hierarchical philosophy. It is by humans and between humans and all other wildlife on Earth. The hierarchical principle is the same.

Not all beliefs should be given equal representation.

You seem to be reading this as certain conclusions are disallowed. While the idea is that certain patterns of reasoning and engagement are disallowed.

This is also why it isnt proposed as a user facing rule but as an internal alignment principle.

Skepticism—while foundational to scientific inquiry—is applied asymmetrically.

straight from the post, this was actively smth i was thinking about.

There’s a meaningful distinction between engaging with research using consistent standards of evidence and methodological critique vs dismissing entire bodies of evidence while elevating weak, anecdotal, or fringe claims without applying the same level of scrutiny.

Also, open inquiry is necessary for challenging systems of domination. But when “skepticism” consistently functions to dismiss evidence of harm or redirect attention away from structural issues, it stops being liberatory and starts reinforcing the status quo. That’s the behavior being targeted—not the act of questioning itself.

What kind of child calls themselves a carnivore?

Yeah this will lead to a lot of complaints about overreach, and maybe also some over-enforcement as well.

“allow leeway to open posts to challenge science”

random spitballed suggestion: introduce a public science focused community. we have a pinned thread/FAQ for current contentious topics, including links to the current research on these things. You know, anti-vax, flat earth ect.

If you disagree with the scientific conclusion as presented by this, you make a post and drop reasonable research supporting your claim.

Moderators can then keep reasonably up-to date on research as it’s posted, as long as the pinned FAQ stays reasonably up to date then moderators and admins will have a quick reference for these actions.

scientific debate can fall into this community, something like a hybrid between YPTB and an actual scientific debate community perhaps?

Granted, I am under no illusion this is an a lot of work, and it probably has more than a few flaws, but maybe its a decent starting point.

You’re right that there’s a real governance problem if moderators are expected to act as scientific arbiters in complex or evolving domains. I don’t think it’s realistic—or desirable—to expect mods to independently determine “the science” on every contested nutritional issue.

And I agree that trying to operationalize this purely as mods determine what the settled science is and punish disagreement would create serious overreach problems.

That’s part of why I tried to frame this less around conclusions and more around patterns of engagement.

Not to mention our rules already prohibit anti-science posting, where mods must make the same calls. As they do with antivaxx, flat earthers etc.

I also think your reframing gets closer to the actual governance issue that triggered this discussion in the first place. The problem wasn’t simply that disagreement existed. It was that certain forms of engagement were repeedly hostile or dismissive toward vegan comrades, derailing discussions into repetitive antagonism and normalizing rhetoric that made parts of the community feel unwelcome or exhausted. This happened within the vegan community and on posts regarding veganism in other comms.

That’s fundamentally a community health and conduct issue, not just a scientific one.

wanted to reply to this sooner, but couldn’t find the time.

Then is moderation in a debate useless, beyond, as you put it, when someone “[threatens] to harm anyone, or [works] actively to undermine rules protecting others, spam, etc”?

I find that absurd.

People, in general, do not engage critically with discussion! Especially discussion with any scientific basis, particularly when the people don’t have the scientific basis to wholly understand the issue.

I fear your whole argument rests on the assumption that people will do this; that bad arguments will be debased by good arguments, and that the public will recognise this. However, we know that this simply does not happen. Some do it, but most just don’t.

People prefer pithy comebacks to accuracy, emotion to reason, and their assumptions affirmed.

It’s not that I think you’re wrong, in a sense. I agree that we should try to correct people, that we have to give a best effort to change hearts and minds, and that unreasonable people should be ignored, downvoted, and disproven. I also don’t like shutting down discourse; but some discourse is harmful, even if it doesn’t directly threaten harm, and to allow it to flourish feels like a disservice to all. And it does flourish.

I think that to work on the assumption that good debate happens naturally is foolish, at least when the arguments take place in a public anonymous square.

If someone is spitting anti-science nonsense then it should be removed for that reason

We don’t do that currently, but it’s an interesting idea.

If someone is spitting anti-science nonsense then it should be removed for that reason

according to the proposal, that is what is happening right now, but not in veganism discussions:

From a moderation standpoint, this pattern is already widely recognized in other domains as characteristic of science denial. The proposal is to apply that same recognition consistently when it appears in anti-vegan discourse.

I don’t understand the need to add a distinction here for veganism.

as i understood it, the proposal isnt about adding a distinction when taking moderation actions, but about taking moderation actions at all. as is being done on other topics already.

to me it looks like u agree with the proposal, but got confused.

I don’t understand the need to add a distinction here for veganism.

Your post gives off “All Lives Matter” in the context of “Black Lives Matter” arguments.

The goal is what you describe: aligning all moderator actions such that any anti-science discussions done in bad faith are shut down. The issue is that veganism in particular on FAF forums, as claimed by OP, sees disproportionate levels of trolling and non-evidentiary critiques. This post seeks to align moderator engagement in these contexts as the bad faith forces to be countered are, as claimed by OP, overhanded.

It has data to back up it’s philosophy, but it’s not a science.

Thank you for making this distinction. Veganism is a philosophy, not a science. You cannot defend philosophical ideals on their face with facts. Now, the facts may lead us to make philosophical judgements, as is the case with animals showing signs of pain when exposed to harm and then considering them to have sentience. But science fundamentally cannot answer questions about morality.

This post appealing to pro-science debate and discussion when veganism is an ideology is odd. It might be a useful tactic to push back on bad faith actors that intentionally go to harass and berate vegan communities just for the sake of their existence, but there can be (and most certainly is) science out there that shows veganism is not the only worthwhile lifestyle that causes positive outcomes in humans and which people would want to adopt into their personal lives.

When we get to the bottom of it, the discussion of veganism sits within the larger discussion of morality and how the most amount of moral actors, whether human or animal, reach their innate potential and flourish. This gets into moral schools of thought like Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and Consequentialism, which again by themselves cannot be proven or disproven scientifically.

As a vegan myself, I want more people to join our movement, and the way you do this is in safe spaces where people can think freely. Bad faith actors, trolls, harassers, stalkers, etc. work against that goal.

Some people may be fine with that, but it is a tenant of the FAF for there to be freedom of thought and expression without propagating hate and hostility towards others. Veganism promotes that, as does Anti-Zionism, Anti-Nazism, etc.

I would be fine with a soft “don’t antagonize people for being vegan rule” but that could also be solved with some of our existing rules enforced for that reason. I feel we do in general, but I could be wrong.

This is actually not a rule and you can antagonize vegans for being vegans, despite other rules seeming like it would not be allowed. But I appreciate this thought of not antagonizing people for no reason.

Unfortunately, this instance is not free speech, just anarchist.

To be clear, I agree that this is going too far when we already have tools to deal with bad faith and harassment, but it has been stated in previous instance votes that anarchism =/= free speech.

your dietary and life choices are your own, nothing wrong with them

This can be said broadly, but when people’s life choices result in the harm of others, including animals, there is a problem with that.

Think about the settlers in the West Bank in Gaza. They make life choices to steal Palestinian land. This is harmful though because it ethnically cleanses Gazans and leads to homelessness, instability, physical and psychological harm of Gazans.

It is a persistent challenge in life that morality and one’s morals grapple with the harm and suffering that occurs in the world. One might say that any project of harm reduction under a system of capitalism is futile because no capitalist consumption is ethical. The magnitude of moral issues in the world should not, however, discourage us from upgrading our morality over time as we try to understand our impact on others in the world and attone for those.

Regardless of philosophy or morality, this post is about equalizing moderator and admin response to anti-vegan dogma in similar ways to anti-climate change dogma and anti-vaccination dogma and anti-fascist dogma. It is not about forcing particular views on users, but cultivating a safe space where people of opposing views can come together and discuss their differences in meaningful ways. Trolls and other bad faith actors are squarely at the center of this conversation, not the particular beliefs themselves.

Vaccination denial isn’t a problem just because it’s rooted in anti-scientific discourse, it’s a problem because it harms not the antivax adults that spread it but their non-consenting children and to vulnerable populations that dont have access to adequate Healthcare.

I feel the same way since I am a vulnerable population when it comes to vaccines. It was clarified that vaccine denial would be allowed which I think is why this post was framed this way.