I was shocked to see this log as it is the largest public health forum. No wonder why people are falling for pseudoscience and misinformation these days as problematic individuals are entrusted in important roles. I suppose it’s time for another migration.
Sure. I do not mind if people hold views that I disagree with, and I am very appreciative of anyone who chooses to donate some of their time and effort to moderation.
If someone abuses moderation powers to disrupt a local community, let me know and I'll try to understand the situation, have a chat with them, or possibly remove them if the situation does get out of hand. I am quite receptive to specific reports of specific actions, but I am not going to micro-manage users or mods and make assumptions/predictions about potential future behavior.
To be specific, in the context of moderating a "public health" community...
Acceptable: Mod or user posts often scientific articles discussing some positive relationship between the health in communities and eating meat. The user/mod may be biased to post articles that conform to their belief/opinion. If the content they post is high-quality and relevant to public health, and they do not overload the community with this single topic, then it is not a problem. Users are free to contribute on-topic however they'd like.
Unacceptable: Moderator removes posts about peer-reviewed scientific articles about public health benefits of vegan diets, a reasonable paper pointing out a risk in meat-eating diets, or bans users who make comments arguing against the conclusions or validity of a paper simply because the paper conforms to the mod's beliefs.
I think this is reasonable.