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.
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”.
Wow that is really solid reasoning, you can definitely tell you’ve been thinking on this.
Thanks for clarifying!
Thanks for asking! I was waffling back and forth for a while about whether that was an “extra” step or if it’s functionally the same action as removing links, and I’m confident now that it’s the exact same ethical issues at play with no meaningful distinction in terms of the overall harm.