MrKaplan

we aren't holding back on lemmy updates due to sublinks.

a moderator on another instance than the community instance

that was a logic flaw for the selection of which reports are considered for alerting. a fix is currently being deployed, but you should be good for the next 2 days anyway.

yes, but for admins, at least on LW scale, this isn't something that is well usable for admins with built-in tools.

community mods and instance admins can see reports on the instance that reports are sent to, and they are currently only sent to the reporters instance, the community instance, and the reported users instance. community mods on another instance won't see the reports.

The animal abuse alleged at the time was that there was supposedly no healthy vegan cat food.

While the section of the rules was the same (violent content), animal abuse was a separate sentence, not the one about visual depictions:

No visual content depicting executions, murder, suicide, dismemberment, visible innards, excessive gore, or charred bodies. No content depicting, promoting or enabling animal abuse. No erotic or otherwise suggestive media or text content featuring depictions of rape, sexual assault, or non-consensual violence. All other violent content should be tagged NSFW.

This is the exact same paragraph we have today and we had before these changes.

If there was no healthy vegan cat food then this would be considered content enabling animal abuse.

The ToS had no rules on misinformation at the time.

it still had rules about animal abuse, which this misinformation, had it actually been misinformation, would have lead to. while the removal reason could have been more clear, the justification was still covered by our ToS.

new rules created to back their talking points

the additional rules provided more clarification on what we intend to achieve with them, but they would not be required. based on what we know today the removal was neither justified by the original ToS nor by the updated ones.

I never said that it only requires harm down the road.

Cutting body parts off or even just cutting them without good medical reason (e.g. risk of death without amputation) is of course also animal abuse.

For hiding pain, you're attacking a strawman, because I already addressed that in my previous comment.

we do not consider feeding a cat vegan food as animal abuse, provided there are no health issues arising from this.

most of the research i've looked at seems to point out that there are various pitfalls, e.g. just feeding a cat vegetables will result in malnutrition. having synthetic additives for this can be one way to address that problem. just because something is sold as vegan cat food that doesn't necessarily imply that it's healthy for the cat, as some of the articles were pointing out that some of the cheaper ones were lacking the right ingredients.

as an example, "my cat now only gets potatoes and apples and nothing else" would be considered animal abuse.

additionally, if moderators were to remove arguments pointing out the risks of e.g. missing nutrients in a civil discussion and leaving the other side that just argues "vegan cat food works" without any arguments as is then we would also consider this animal abuse.

in this specific incident the conversation was certainly not civil, which is unfortunate, as this situation would likely have gone a very different way if it was.

either you don't have "show bot accounts" disabled in your profile or you have discovered a lemmy bug. this account is marked as bot also when viewed from slrpnk.net. you most likely do not have show bot accounts disabled.

you may have been thinking of https://poliverso.org/objects/0477a01e-1166-c773-5a67-70e129601762, which was neither lemmy devs, mastodon devs nor lemmy.world admins

the bot has been marked as bot since the very beginning and is also clearly marked as bot in the screenshot as @blackn1ght@feddit.uk already mentioned.

i also just checked on db0 in case there was some federation issue that would have the account not be marked as bot over there and it's also clearly marked as bot when viewed on db0.

the bot has been marked as bot since the very beginning and is also clearly marked as bot in the screenshot, so your comment does not apply here.