Going forward, all links to and screenshots of Twitter/X on /c/vegan will be removed

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.

24 comments

Good decision! I hope more comms make the same one.

Holy crap, we have found common ground

- Had a strong hunch you'd be onboard, veganpizza. lol

based

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 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.

Based

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".
  
  Thanks for clarifying!
  
  Wow that is really solid reasoning, you can definitely tell you've been thinking on this.

As a vegan, I approve

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.

24 comments