OK, so some counters:

• I mean, plenty of pet-keeping practices can count as some form of animal abuse but are readily tolerated.
• EG, It’s fairly common for cats to be prevented form hunting other animals like birds etc through bells on collars or even keeping them indoors. From what I’ve seen, this genuinely makes cats sad and bored … but it’s done a lot and for good reason as they’re really obligate hunters. There’s also how a lot of dog owners treat dogs too which frankly can be damn right heart breaking.
• “Obligate carnivore” doesn’t mean that much. They have nutritional needs which either can or cannot be met by various food production techniques.
• And it’s important to note that pet food is not a well regulated industry with high quality produce. AFAIU, cats mainly (or exclusively) require a single and very simple molecule, taurine, which is easily produced synthetically or artificially. Moreover, I’d wager that a lot of commercial cat food has synthetic taurine added to it rather than getting it from carnivorous sources (cuz it’d be cheaper), which is at least suggested by the linked wikipedia article (genuinely curious about this if anyone knows more).
• Additionally, cats probably require a certain balance of proteins and fats that might be difficult to reproduce from non-animalistic sources.

All up, pets are absolutely subjected to human codes of ethics and values … they’re pets and subjecting them to our needs, desires and demands is exactly what owning a pet is all about (for better or worse).

If you have problems with that, I personally understand, but modifying their diet without wanting to sacrifice their health is very much the type of thing that pet ownership is generally all about. The lines being drawn here seem to me to not be about the specific issue of whether a vegan cat diet is feasible … and merely talking about it a reasonable thing … but about how one feels about vegans in general.

On which, accusing vegans of animal abuse is certainly a choice. From what I’ve seen, any conversation about this from a vegan was always starting from a position of caring about the dietary requirements of cats (which may be more than what some pet food manufacturers and pet owners do) and being informed about them. Whether that’s what happened in the relevant incident, I’m not sure, but the bits I’ve seen certainly indicate that it could have been reasonable too.

Which all comes back to my original point … what is moderation to bring to such a conversation and situation and what are its aims?

Any chance the relevant incident could be unpacked and used as a demonstration of how these changes would alter the outcome or encourage a different outcome?

As someone who only saw pieces of it after the fact, I am potentially in the dark here about the purposes and context of these changes.

That being said, from what I did see, it seemed very much like an instance admin imposing themselves and their superior power on a community when there were probably plenty of other more subtle action that could have been taken, where subtlety becomes vital for any issue complex and nuanced enough to be handled remotely well. I’m not sure I’m seeing any awareness of this in this post and the links provided.

For instance, AFAICT, the “incident” involved a discussion of if or how a domestic cat could eat a vegan diet. Obviously that’s not trivial as they, like humans, have some necessary nutrients, and AFAICT the vegans involved were talking about how it could be done, while the admin involved was basically having none of that and removed content on the basis that it would lead to a cat dying.

And then in the misinformation link we have:

We also reserve the right to remove any sufficiently scientifically proven MALICIOUS information posted which a user may follow, which would result in either IMMINENT PHYSICAL harm to an INDIVIDUALS PROPERTY, the PROPERTY of OTHERS or OTHER LIVING BEINGS.

In the context of cats and their food … which “living beings” are being harmed and who is encouraging or discouraging this harm?

Whether you’re vegan or not, this seems to me formally ambiguous and on the face of it only enshrines the source of the conflict rather than facilitating better forms of communication or resolution (perhaps there are things in the by-laws I’ve missed??).

Two groups can have exactly the same aim and core values (reduce harm to living beings) but in the complexity of the issue come to issue a bunch of friendly fire … that’s how complex issues work.

So, back to my original question … how exactly would things be done better?