You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:
I’m sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:
- Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?
Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you’re posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.
- Why now?
Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren’t necessarily WRONG. Biden’s poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.
- Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?
The articles return2ozma shared weren’t bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like “beforeitsnews.com”, they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.
The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.
Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.
30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.
Good move, they were a clown and pointing out that they were arguing entirely in bad faith is correct. They did it under the guise of being far-leftist, but as a far-leftist myself, I have a hard time believing it was for anything other than pissing people off. Hopefully they can go practice being happy instead of doom-posting on niche Internet forums.
I have a hard time believing it was for anything other than pissing people off.
this is why I blocked them. Also, kinda felt I didn’t want to be seeing his crap. Biden is an awful candidate but R20 ain’t helping matters.
Dude thank God
I won’t pretend to know what the fully correct decision on stuff like this is; it’s definitely complex bordering on impossible (among other reasons because I actually think it’s good to have vocal easily-identifiable bad-faith accounts, because they tee up great conversations even if the original intent behind the post wasn’t good and people are annoyed by it).
But that being said it seems crazy that some of these accounts are still allowed to post here freely, given what was in my view some pretty ironclad indication that they’re not posting in good faith.
pointing out the valid problems Biden faces
So this touches on one of my key least favorite things about return2ozma – I’d actually go well beyond what you saw in that one comment from him, and say that at this point, he’s clearly not just pointing out valid problems. Posting negative polls is one thing, mostly completely fine. Everyone’s got their viewpoint and allowed to post whatever view they want. But he’ll also post specific assertions about Biden that objectively aren’t true (marijuana policy being a good example), and then continue posting them after it’s shown to him that they’re not true – all the while swearing that he’s trying to help, just bringing up all this negative information because he really wants the Democrats to win, and so is giving constructive criticism so they can change course.
IDK man. That to me is very clear indication that he’s lying about what he’s trying to do, and being deliberately dishonest with what he posts. I think the posts I’m referring to were in some meme sub, not here, so maybe what you’re saying about the content he posts specifically in !politics@lemmy.world coming technically from reputable sources is a valid counter argument. IDK. Maybe. But to me, avowing “I am trying to help Biden” while posting objectively false criticism of him, and not really pretending it’s any other way than that, is actually worse by quite a lot than avowing “I am here to post negative information about Biden.” (not that that latter one is good…)
Like I say I’m not trying to weigh in on what the right answer is (either with ozma or the other similar accounts), because I don’t really see a good right answer. Just tossing in my observations as a person who doesn’t have to take the responsibility of trying to figure out how to handle it.
(@return2ozma@lemmy.world - I feel a little unfair about posting this in a forum where you aren’t allowed in to defend yourself; if you want to create a thread anywhere else with any response you want to make, I’ll link to it from here so you can give your side of anything where you feel I’ve been inaccurate / unfair.)
My take is the dude just filled the board with unrelenting misery. I’m happy for the occasional reminder that Biden could be doing better. I think he’s flat wrong on certain policies. But oddly enough I still get that point of view without R2O, while enjoying my time here a lot more.
There’s that, too, yes.
God, the unrelenting misery is killing me in this platform. I think the thing I’m most sick and tired of more than anything else is the constant stream of The Usual Suspects butting in with “But what about Gaza?!” on Every. Single. Post.
Post an article about Biden proposing a ceasefire agreement in the war? Complain about Biden giving support to Israel!
Post an article about Biden celebrating pride month? Complain about Biden funding Israel!
Article about Biden forgiving another batch of student loans? “BUt Biden supports israel!”
Article about Trump getting convicted of felonies? “But Biden! Gaza! Israel!”
Article about a small town library fighting LGBTQ+ book bans? “GAZA! ISRAEL! BIDEN! BAD”
Article about a goddamn random topic completely unrelated to Biden, Trump, Israel, politics, or the US at all? “GENOCIIIIIIIIIIDE!”
It’s at the point where I’ve cut back on Lemmy usage entirely because every comment thread I click on is like navigating a fucking minefield of misery. Nothing good can ever happen, no policy changes can ever be celebrated, no events can be remarked upon, without someone butting in with a reminder that Genocide Mother-Fucking Joe is personally shoveling coal into the palestinian child incinerator. No post can ever leave you with any emotion other than the thin veil of doomerism settling upon your shoulders, a pall of depression casting itself over the tragedy of the world, and a sense that modern society is an Aristocrats joke that has long since crossed the line from “horrifying” to “funny,” then back to “horrifying,” then back to “funny,” before settling itself so firmly in “horrifying” that the audience is casting nervous glances and hoping that someone else is the first to call the police.
Man, the first thing I did when I joined Lemmy was to develop a policy of blocking anyone that didn’t think I would enjoy seeing or interacting with. They didn’t have to do anything wrong per se, but if I thought they argued in bad faith or jumped to ad hominem attacks or whatever, I’d block them.
I was worried at first. Some of them were prolific, and I didn’t want this place to feel empty. But I’ve found that I’m spending less time arguing with people who only want to piss me off gives me more time to interact with more thoughtful folks. The responses in turn encourage them to post more. So by blocking people I don’t like and encouraging people I do, I think that helps to make the community better as a whole, not even just for me.
Life is too short. I come here to interact with people I enjoy. We don’t have to agree, it just has to not be someone who inspires the thought, “not this motherfucker again.” Try it. It makes Lemmy so much better.
Good luck, my friend.
Well said. For each article, they’d consistently select the source with the most inflammatory headline and perspective and post it in several places at once, ensuring a clearly negative perception of Biden for casual browsers.
There’s no shortage of criticism of Biden on Lemmy. We should all want the most factual articles posted to support well-informed discussions of his actions.
He admitted to me, after I accused him, that he searches a news aggregator for “Biden” daily and posts the negative stuff he sees. I believe he said it was to hold dems accountable or something. That exchange was maybe a month or two back and might have been either here or on !news@lemmy.world
If I do a search for puppy mills every day and only post the negative things, is that bad faith?
Let’s go with that example. If you posted multiple times per day about puppy mills on a community about animals, that would be a bit much. I post multiple posts about Trump per day but its generally reflective of overall media coverage. I just go to my preferred sources and browse their home pages for news that seems interesting. I don’t seek out anything in particular.
If you’re posting to Aww? Absolutely.
Ok, so if Biden is a puppy mill, is Trump the kill shelter?
And then this guy is PETA, working at kill shelters while posting negative stuff about puppy mills?
If your goal is to fuel a distorted view about the competing candidates then that is bad faith.
I’d love to one day, see just ONE of you people offer up a good argument that’s relevant to the topic.
That’s what you call “bad faith engagement”?
Really?
The shitlib push to get everybody to snort your toxic and dangerous fallacious positivity in unison is starting to get really, really overt.
So…. Someone saying their entire purpose is to share only the negative about Biden wasn’t overt enough?
Seems overt bias is fine with you if it favors your agenda.
I’m willing to bet they just don’t think having a bias is bannable
If I have an issue with the kinds of things someone else is posting, and they haven’t actually broken a rule, I either downvote it, argue with them about it, post my own content that represents my own perspective, or all three. I don’t cheer for that user to be banned simply because I don’t like their bias or agenda
Yeah, I cheer because they’re admittedly here in bad faith to spread bullshit. And they are now muted as a result of it.
If what they were spreading was bullshit, the posts themselves would have been removed for breaking misinformation rules.
If what they were spreading was biden’s own shit so that you had to smell it instead of ignoring it, I think he was doing you a service and you should be thanking him.
I’m not sorry that one of your own was silence for a while. The peace and quiet is going to be memorable to say the least.
The dude admitted to posting in bad faith. So… you really have no argument here at all.
And let’s not pretend that you wouldn’t be the exact same way if you found out a well-known anti-propagandist was banned for a month.
The mod even stated that the articles weren’t bullshit and please explain how the posting behaviour amounts to bad faith as defined by wikipedia:
Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another.[1] It is associated with hypocrisy, breach of contract, affectation, and lip service.[2] It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception.
Ozma was not being deceptive, pretending feelings or paying lip service. He was honest snd consistent, people just didn’t want to hear it.
Yeah, he was honest about spreading propaganda. That’s why his ass got booted.
share only the negative about Biden
Pretending that there can be anything positive about liberalism (or it’s myriad servants - like Biden) is outright lying, liberal.
I’d say we’ve been handling you liberals with kid gloves up until now.
That is some quality rage-bait lmao. It’s like a caricature of someone endlessly pumping themselves with Fox News, filled with a “you won because we let you” arrogance.
pumping themselves with Fox News
You don’t even know what liberalism is, do you, liberal?
Do tell… before today, has it actually ever occured to you that liberalism happens to be it’s very own ideology?
Did you know that (so-called) “conservatism” isn’t, because, in reality, “conservatism” is just liberalism with extra hysterics?
No? Yes?
Liberalism is it’s own ideology. Conservatism isn’t because it’s just leberalism with extra hysterics.
Like… The conservatives cry more? They’re more emotional? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
And I never said that I was a liberal. I just think you sound like a twat.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
In other words… you need to have your own ideology explained to you, because you have never actually given your ideology a second thought.
You never even chose it.
And I never said that I was a liberal.
And? How does that affect the fact that you’re a liberal, liberal?
Confidently saying something like that clearly illustrates the problem with leftism, lefty. You people have no concept of how nuance works or even what it means.
Confidently saying something like that clearly illustrates the problem with liberalism, liberal. You people have no use for nuance except as something to hide behind.
Dude, your entire post/comment history reads like a cautionary tale on how not to come off as the “ackshually” meme guy.
Side note- calling liberals “liberal” isn’t the insult you think it is.
And lastly… nuance isn’t a thing to hide behind. It’s just… a thing. You see, the world and everthing in it- exists within a grey area called “reality.” This is ironically where a lot of ignorant people stage their ideology of “everthing is either black-and-white/everyone is either with us, or against us” from.
calling liberals “liberal” isn’t the insult you think it is.
You mean… just like the terms fascist, white supremacist and colonialist weren’t insults once? They sure are now, aren’t they?
And lastly… nuance isn’t a thing to hide behind.
Then stop hiding behind it, liberal. Defend your ideology… if you can.
Okay, since you’ve basically admitted to using the term “liberal” as an insult, I’ve nothing to say to you. Because circumventing the “no personal attacks” rule by calling people “liberals” as a derogatory is about as bad faith as it gets.
You’re the conversational equivalent of a Trump supporter.
Removed by mod
Yeah, I’m sorta startled that admitting to wanting to highlight negative truths over cheering for someone is considered bad faith. Bad faith is misrepresenting an issue, not selectively posting reputable sources. This is one mod decision that I think is wrong and bad.
It’s going to get worse and worse as November comes around. The liberal hysterics is pretty similar to 2016 - be prepared for more of the same.
I think I agree more with the spam angle than the “only bad news” angle. As others have said it’s fine to have a viewpoint and mainly share articles in line with that viewpoint. However doing it many times per day, every day, when the number of posts here is limited anyway, does impact the community.
In any case, the main thing is to be consistent and ideally make whatever the rule is very clear. And I would say this should be turned into an explicit rule or explanation under an existing rule.
Personally I just read what I want to, and if it seems bad faith, downvote and move on.
A rate limit would make far more sense than whatever this is.
I was thinking of saying the same thing. I’m not sure the mod tools support it though.
Set up a script that tallies user submissions, and remove new ones that exceed the limit.
I’m not familiar with the mod tools but I find it hard to imagine you couldn’t write a short little script that does that.
i agree, jordanlund is opening themselves up for extra scrutiny with this.
spam and displaying signs of getting off on angering users (trolling) is absolutely a valid and nonpartisan reason for a ban. but as soon as the mods start citing actual politics (outside of clear examples of misinfo, which is not in play here) it gets dicey and accusations of bias pile up fast, which is exactly what we are seeing play out right in these comments.
Look, I have zero illusions to how popular of a decision this is in this comm, and this isn’t my instance so who the fuck cares what I think.
but
I have a very hard time seeing this as anything other than a disagreement over personal political tastes, rather than anything to do with a violation of some unwritten rule. Your comm already has rules regarding article quality, misinformation, and off-topic posts and comments that could be used as a justification here if it applied. If there was a problem with the volume of posts for which he was responsible (i think this is the legitimate concern here), then you could either call it spamming or there could easily be a rule added limiting the number of posts per day that applies globally and isn’t reliant on subjective judgement.
I’ve been very vocal about my own political opinions, and have myself been accused of bad-faith trolling and of being a covert agent of some type or other. Speaking for myself, I think there’s a pretty obvious bias (maybe preference is a more fair term) when it comes to the coverage and rhetoric about the upcoming election in the US specifically. There’s legitimacy to the observation that inconvenient bad press about Biden is ignored/rationalized/dismissed on a ‘lesser evil’ and ‘at all costs’ political rationale that I (and I think ozma) tend to react negatively to. Breaking through the iron curtain of electoral politics to people who genuinely share political values (not all of them, mind you) sometimes involves repeated reminders and presentation of counter-partisan coverage. I personally appreciate ozma’s contributions because often these posts and articles encourage real discussions about the limitations of this particular politician, and people like @mozz@mbin.grits.dev frequently jump in and provide nuanced dissection and context to what would otherwise be an easily dismissed issue.
This is not my instance so It’s not up to my judgment what the right or wrong thing to do is here, but .world being an instance that has already de-federated with most others with louder left-leaning politics, the overton window has already been considerably narrowed. By removing the loudest dissenters (who are ‘not wrong, just assholes’), you run the risk of warping reality for those who don’t care enough to confront coverage they might find uncomfortable and might prefer a more quiet space to affirm their politics instead of being challenged. You’re cultivating an echo chamber simply by cutting out the noise you find disagreeable. The goal of agitation is to get exactly those people to engage more so that we can move the overton window further left and accomplish more at the electoral level in the future. It isn’t ‘bad faith’ to be motivated by that goal, it just might be unfair to people who are comfortable with where that window currently is and would rather not be challenged by it moving further left.
- Is okay: Having a viewpoint, whatever the viewpoint
- Isn’t okay: Pushing a particular chosen viewpoint regardless of how well it aligns with the information you’re drawing from, being upfront about that being your strategy, and then following through to a beyond-parody level of annoying everyone and repeating yourself day in and day out
IDK why everyone’s so eager to read a pretty detailed explanation of why the issue isn’t his viewpoint, and then follow up right away with extensive hand wringing over the idea of censoring his viewpoint.
Because it’s pretty clearly about his viewpoint, since the cited comment in the post is ‘this is my viewpoint, and that viewpoint is why i’m posting these things’
If it’s about the volume of posts call it spamming and address it with a rule about post limits. Calling it bad-faith is necessarily about the reason he’s making the posts, not how many of them there are or the quality of the articles.
I have a new idea: Anyone who wants to hide behind “I am posting this as a far left person, to help the left, because I care super much about the left and if you don’t like my viewpoint you are clearly a shitlib censoring my helpful left viewpoint of shitting relentlessly on Biden,” has to post at least a 1:1 ratio of posts in favor of ranked choice voting, or local helpful leftist candidates, or directing people to a Palestine protest, or some left helpful viewpoint that isn’t “let’s have Trump come to power because Biden isn’t everything I hoped and dreamed for, as for-sure genuine leftist.”
If the shills are gonna accuse people of policing viewpoint let’s police some fuckin viewpoints, to make sure they make some sense
(Note: I am clearly joking about this. Mostly.)
I’m noticing you do this a lot:
“We should require proof of support of some leftist goals from people who want to criticize biden - i’m only kidding (kinda)” “This instance looks a lot like a troll farm - i’m not accusing just saying it’s suspicious”
Sounds to me like you wouldn’t be opposed to a political alignment test as a requirement to participating in political discussions (i’m clearly joking about this. mostly)
I talk from time to time about wanting to set up a forum where if you say something, you have to back it up, as a way to mitigate the impact of low-effort trolling “of COURSE we all agree Biden ruined the climate” from 5-10 different accounts as a technique to distort the discourse. I think it’s toxic if it is politically slanted so that someone with mod power is deciding what is the “right” political viewpoint, obviously; on that much we will agree. But I do think that the discourse is being radically distorted by the existence of organized shilling efforts, and I think about what would be a good solution to it (which seems like a pretty difficult problem), in ways which I am sure would be wildly unpopular with a certain segment of the userbase.
You can characterize that as me thirsting to silence dissenting political views, if you want. I won’t stop you.
I don’t think you’re trying to silence political views at all, but I do think you’re trying to dismiss them as fringe, dishonest, or intentional subterfuge.
Castigating people you disagree with as ‘shills’ or ‘bad faith actors’ is, in my opinion, the lowest quality of political commentary. It excuses you from engaging with what that person saying, simply because you doubt their honesty, as if somehow that invalidates what they’re saying. I think it’s lazy and I wish mods would enforce their own rules against it.
I also find it frustrating that you continuously accuse people like myself and ozma of acting according to some agenda, but then appear in every political thread giving impassioned arguments about how we need to look past Biden’s flaws no matter how real they are, as if that is not itself a political agenda. Do I think you’re arguing that in bad faith? No, but then again i’m not in support of banning people who are simply too loud about their perspective.
Castigating people you disagree with as ‘shills’ or ‘bad faith actors’ is, in my opinion, the lowest quality of political commentary. It excuses you from engaging with what that person saying
Can you point to anyone who’s said anything that I responded to without engaging on its own merits?
Everyone has a rosy view of themselves I am sure, but in my mind, I’ve spent an almost pathological amount of time here talking to ozma about the merits of what he’s saying, on the face of them, and likewise for you, likewise for a lot of the other people. Then also in addition to that, if they display shill-like behavior I tend to call it out instead of just avoiding the potentially-unfair accusation. But I don’t think I have ever really led out of the gate with anything along the lines of “you’re a shill so that means I don’t have to respond to what you just said”.
Can you point to an example of someone who said something and I just dismissed what they were saying instead of breaking down why (in my view) it wasn’t right, at least as a first step even if later I proceeded to what I thought of their motivations or changing the subject or etc?
IDK why everyone’s so eager to read a pretty detailed explanation of why the issue isn’t his viewpoint, and then follow up right away with extensive hand wringing over the idea of censoring his viewpoint.
Simple. They’re not buying the explanation.
Dude admitted to being a propagandist. You have no argument here.
he was posting stories from reputable sources.
And ONLY certain stories that fit a narrative. How is this part being ignored?
Oh… I get it. You also support that narrative.
no one shouldbe compelled to spread a story that supports a point of view with which they disagree. so long as his posts were, in themselves, in compliance with the rules, there should have been no problem.
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? This was all explained already. They were spamming the community with agenda-based news. No one suggested they share news they disagree with.
And if you check the mod logs, not ALL of what they shared was legitimate.
They were rightfully banned. And I’d prefer it permanent, but it’s still a step in the right direction. Not arguing this with you further.
He admitted he disliked Biden. That does not make him a propagandist.
He admitted he only chooses to post negative things about Biden. Don’t move goalposts for someone else… it’s VERY bad look.
When people only post negative things about Trump what is the reason?
Find me someone that does nothing but post negative shit about Trump all day here and I’ll concede this discussion.
It’s actually not a disagreement. :) I actually agree with a lot of the substance of the articles. Biden needs to address his support in minority communities for example.
The problem comes from posting negative news purely to be negative, over and over and over.
It becomes less constructive and more about harping on Biden, a la Fox/Newsmax/Oann.
I think it’s safe to say you do disagree about what constitutes ‘fair’ coverage of Biden
I think it’s safe to say you don’t understand them when they tell you it was because it was agenda-based spam.
If it’s spam then set a limit on the number of posts and move on. If it’s because he has an agenda then I guess everyone here should be banned, too, including jordanlund, since ‘there’s too much anti-biden coverage here’ is an agenda-based determination itself.
‘there’s too much anti-biden coverage here’ is an agenda-based determination itself.
Why do you consistently infantilize the things people are arguing? Nowhere has jordan said “there’s too much anti-biden coverage here”, or anything even approaching that.
edit: You did the same thing here. You keep twisting the argument being presented into something facially ridiculous rather than engaging with what other users are actually saying.
“Biden doesn’t have enough slips to merit the number of negative posts”
edit: You did the same thing here. You keep twisting the argument being presented into something facially ridiculous rather than engaging with what other users are actually saying.
He’s specifically supporting his argument that some accounts criticizing biden are bad-faith actors, by providing an example of what he doesn’t consider to be bad faith (the difference being generalized support with some loud criticisms). I don’t think I misrepresented him at all, and mozz and I discussed it at length, if you care to read it
Yeah, and you infantilized something he’s reiterated in like 6 or 7 different ways to “there’s too much anti-biden coverage here”. Those two are not equivalent, and you omitting the second part of the sentence proves that you know it.
I don’t think I misrepresented him at all
You did. You took:
the people on Lemmy who support Biden in general, but also give him lots of criticism because of his support for Israel. That’s a normal person. They say I like good things, and I don’t like bad things. I don’t pick one team and then only say the good things about that team and only the bad things about the other team.
…and turned it into “It’s ok to criticize Biden so long as you still generally support him”. Those two arguments are not in any way the same.
Why do you keep doing that? Why can’t you engage with the words as they’re written in black and white?
You honestly think mods have the time to count how many posts each person makes?
RTO has been spamming this community and others with anti-Biden rhetoric for a long time. People have been complaining a LOT in the comments. To the point where it was damn near biased that they kept protecting the clown.
There’s enough anti-Biden stuff around posted in this, and other communities that it’s not necessary for ONE person to pepper a community with that shit all day.
Let’s not resort to bad faith comparisons when the explanation was sound. Even if you disagree with it.
Mods hardly do anything manually, i’m arguing for a automated limit that’s community-wide. So no, I don’t think mods have time to count the posts of their thousands of users, but I think scripting that rule into an automod would be almost trivial.
Let’s not resort to bad faith comparisons when the explanation was sound. Even if you disagree with it.
It’s not bad-faith, my point is that having an agenda doesn’t make behavior bad-faith. I don’t even think it’s unreasonable to ask for fewer posts from ozma, just call it what it is and enforce it for everyone, instead of making it about the specific perspective he’s pushing.
Well said.
I blocked him quite a while ago.
Poll after poll after poll were filling up my feed at one point.
Fuck that shit. You sir, may fuck off.
Normally I’m not one to even entertain the thought of commenting on a political thread, but I feel it would be disingenuous to click the button without any feedback in this case. This decision leaves me with a large enough lack of confidence in the future moderation of this community(especially given we’re in an election year) such that I can’t in good faith leave it on my feed and I will be blocking this comm after this comment.
While I agree that Ozma deserved a ban for spam, the justification used for this is frankly appalling. Misrepresentation of bias as bad-faith, especially with the admission that largely good sources were used is unacceptable.
To me this is not clearly explained in the rules. While I didn’t like the content in question, this seems overly heavy-handed for the situation.
I’m sorry but how is that admitting bad faith? Feels more like just saying they’re posting the negative because no one else is.
Only posting bad news about one person is trolling. They weren’t here to engage honestly.
Please explain how that’s trolling when said person keeps doing things to warrant bad press?
You say it’s okay to post negative stories about Biden but then say if we say we’re posting negative stories that means a ban?
Biden doesn’t have enough slips to merit the number of negative posts, and the absence of anything positive indicates he was only here to stir shit up.
It IS possible to mention that Biden’s numbers are improving (they are) or that the (Murdoch owned) WSJ article was bullshit:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4704853-white-house-wall-street-journal-biden/
Polls improving doesn’t mean there’s not negative stories due to him.
Or that Murdock owned press are the only ones writing about him.
Uh oh, sounds like someone is heading towards a Bad Faith Engagement!
Prepare the black bags of silence, it’s time for reeducation.
careful haha i’m with you for most of this thread but this comment dives into an argument that weakens your position i think.
i didn’t block that account because of the number of negative biden posts. personally i blocked them because they kept being abusive to people in the comments in a way that they clearly enjoyed, aka trolling. (i don’t think personally i ever even noticed the biden thing, just that they were mean a lot.) i think it’s enough to ban them for abusing the platform in a way that is contra to the average user having a constructive experience (and then admitting to the means of it)—you don’t really need to stoop to counting Biden’s “slips” as that is just opening yourself for more dissent
cheers ☕️☀️
Biden doesn’t have enough slips to merit the number of negative posts, and the absence of anything positive indicates he was only here to stir shit up.
I’m not here to debate this perspective, but you should be aware that this sounds a lot like editorializing.
That is often the problem with Ozma. Picking the most editorialized lowest quality source. Focused on turning nothing into something. In order to meet some “biden bad!” Quota. Not every single time. But often enough. Some of them were pretty ridiculous how hard they were reaching.
If there’s a bad source then I would imagine it would either be removed or at least challenged in the comments.
Him presenting a lot of examples that support his opinion isn’t bad faith, imho
they were here to post links to political news that complied with the rules. your capricious moderation has been a problem since your first week.
Admtting he was only posting negative news for the explicit purpose of being negative was what earned the temp ban.
capricious moderation is the only real explanation.
If that were true, I would have banned them AGES ago when people first started complaining about them.
It took 11 months to earn this ban, and a temp ban at that.
given that their behavior has been the same this whole time, this doesn’t hold water.
The behavior has been the same, what changed was the admission. Until then they had the benefit of doubt.
Refusing to stop posting debunked claims is dishonest
And yet that’s not the reason for the ban or mentioned
what was the debunked post?
Why not all the shit blaming him for what Republican congress members does?
maybe you could just link one?
Why would I bother search through his account history now?
if what you are saying were true, you could do it. a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. i don’t believe you, and no one should.
Ok so I scrolled back line 2 weeks of the dudes history, and apparently he posts dozens of times per day and I can’t be bothered to scroll further. Some dozen articles on polls blaming the admin for stuff they aren’t responsible for, ignoring things they did do, and some article insinuating dementia, and a bunch of doomerism. There’s probably better examples further back than 2 weeks, but I can’t be bothered. Other people in this thread has given examples of stuff they’ve seen from him so maybe check for yourself
I’m ok with this, it was borderline spam with how many articles they managed to find and post all on the same theme.
Admitting that you only share the bad side of something isn’t arguing in bad faith.
I am very against fucking murder, I will not share news articles that cast murder in a good light.
That’s not bad faith, that’s just the truth.
Would you all rather someone not clearly state how they feel, would you rather them try to hide it?
So here’s the real question I have @jordanlund@lemmy.world .
If someone had posted nothing but good things about Biden or only bad things about trump would this all still happen?
We don’t accept articles from Fox News or Newsmax for the same reason, it’s clear they have an axe to grind.
Selecting to post all negative material, all the time, may not be the exact same axe, but’s definitely in same tool shed.
Thank you. The goal is to have informed discussion of our opinions, not the opinions of the source. That’s not possible when the source material is focused on interpreting the facts rather than presenting them.
We don’t accept articles from Fox News or Newsmax for the same reason, it’s clear they have an axe to grind.
That seems a little strong, even though they are shit sources. I don’t want right wing views censored because I want a chance to tell everyone how wrong they are.
Admitting that you only share the bad side of something isn’t arguing in bad faith.
I actually sort-of agree that we shouldn’t be banning people because of a “slanted” viewpoint just because of how difficult it is to do that fairly, without creating more problems than it solves.
But only sharing the bad side of something is absolutely arguing in bad faith. A normal person looks at the world and says, what do I think? And then they say it. They’re not on “Team Biden.” They’re not on “Team Russia.” They’re just a person speaking for themselves, and the people they support, they decided to support because they decided good things about them, but if they learn bad things about those people, it’s not like they’ll try to cover them up or support that person anyway. They just say what they think about it, not picking only one side and presenting that exclusively.
The example I would keep bringing up for this is the people on Lemmy who support Biden in general, but also give him lots of criticism because of his support for Israel. That’s a normal person. They say I like good things, and I don’t like bad things. I don’t pick one team and then only say the good things about that team and only the bad things about the other team. That’s bad faith. That’s dishonest.
I mean everyone does it to some degree. It sort of hurts if the side you are supporting is doing something criminal, and there’s a little bit of an impulse not to focus on it. But just deciding that you’re only going to present one side of the story, no matter what good or bad information emerges, because you think it’s “needed” or because that’s “your side,” is dishonest. It’s bad faith. And definitely when you do it to the degree that ozma did it, it goes beyond the level of “well everyone’s got their viewpoint” and starts to become “how can I persuade other people to this viewpoint, I have very little care whether it’s right or wrong, it’s just the viewpoint I have decided to try to persuade them of.”
Like I say I don’t know how much the mods should get involved in detecting that and banning it. But definitely it’s not how things should be (and anyone who tells you that most people operate that way is not accurately describing any healthy functioning message board even within the low bar that is the internet.)
The example I would keep bringing up for this is the people on Lemmy who support Biden in general, but also give him lots of criticism because of his support for Israel. That’s a normal person.
I’m about to break decorum here, but who the fuck are you to decide what constitutes ‘normal’ behavior? ‘It’s ok to criticize Biden so long as you still generally support him’ is a pretty brazen example of ‘bad faith’ argumentation IMHO.
Even if they do consider it bad fucking make it an explicit rule for the sub, not just pick a random one to give a 30 day ban
especially when mod log shows worse stuff getting just 1 day bans for being abusive in DMs
There is an explicit call out for good faith posting, but it’s attached to the Civility rule which entirely too many people ignore. :(
People get banned for being abusive in DMs? Who do you even report that to?
I’m guessing only when they do it to mods lol. Was in the mod log
That makes sense.
[if ALL you’re posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. ]
It’s okay to do that about a specific politician if that is your true opinion. However, it does seem like this person was arguing in bad faith by admitting he is aware things are not as bad as his posts seem.
Kind of incredible someone can be banned for posting too many negative stories about Biden (and admitting they like posting them, I guess?) while the mods here ignore users that post comments denying that specific homophobic instances occurred. Happy Pride! 🥳
Well, we don’t have time to read every comment in every post.
If there are problems, make sure you report them! That’s what we see first and foremost!
I did, that’s why they’re already banned on Blahaj.
Edit: Also, I literally just spoke to you about it right now and the comments are still up on lemmy.world, so I’m not sure what message I’m supposed to take here other than these comments don’t break the rules.
I haven’t had time to go back and review the chain you’re talking about, re-report it and I’ll grab it when I have the chance.
I can’t re-report it, they’re banned on blahaj and the comments have been purged for me. Also my client (maybe instance?) doesn’t allow re-reporting.
Got it, I’ll come back through the comment link when I have the chance!
Should I take that these comments are still up near 24 hours later with no follow up to mean that they don’t break any rules?
Starting from here:
https://lemmy.world/comment/10473647
Yeah, there’s nothing actionable there. The downvotes and replies do the job.
Guy is making a provably false argument, that’s proven to be false.
How is that in bad faith?
Theres lots of blind support and promotion for team blue on here that I think Ozma was providing a needed counter balance. You say you dont want an echo chamber but I think this acomplishes the opposite.
So whats the ratio of good to bad news that we must share in order to not be banned?
Theres lots of blind support and promotion for team blue on here
Every time we have this conversation, this same point comes up, and it’s always totally imaginary.
The whole board is full of people giving Biden shit (chiefly for Israel at this point; honestly it might be a different story if he wasn’t giving them weapons, but as it is, I think you’d be hard pressed to find any story about US aid for Israel that doesn’t have its top rated comment as giving his war criminal ass a hard time for it. As well they should.)
But the trolls like to create a reality where they are the only ones that are willing to criticize Biden, and anyone who’s taking any note of their particular brand of wildly dishonest and repetitive-almost-like-someone’s-doing-it-as-a-job anti Biden postings, just is part of some kind of imaginary monolith that doesn’t want any criticism.
The fact that it’s never true and looking at the comments for like 2 seconds will illustrate that it’s not true, somehow never deters people from saying it.
The whole board is full of people giving Biden shit
And more often than not is followed by a variation of “vote blue no matter who” or its heavilly downvoted or gets several replies all telling them how dumb and wrong they are. Thats what I meant, but I admit that it isnt as one sided as my comment might imply.
Anyways, I dont think their descicion of only sharing negative news about biden is not inherently in bad faith. In fact, I believe them admitting to doing so proves the oposite, they were telling people directly what types of news they are sharing and what their view of the situation is, instead of pretending to be objective when theres clearly a bias.
And more often than not is followed by a variation of “vote blue no matter who” or its heavilly downvoted or gets several replies all telling them how dumb and wrong they are.
Brb, I’m gonna look for the most recent “US does something pro-Israel for some fuckin reason” and total up how many of the first few top voted comments got followed up by a variation of “vote blue no matter who” or is heavily downvoted or gets several replies etc etc.
Edit: It’s actually kind of tough, because most of the stuff in !politics@lemmy.world is about domestic things. The first thing I found that was big enough to have lots of replies, and dealt with Israel as pertains to the US’s policy, was this. Top comment is critical of Biden, i.e. not too heavily downvoted. Then, the top reply is me, defending Biden saying he has nothing to do with this and explaining why. Lots of discussion about who actually is to blame including people saying it includes Schumer, other people saying no it doesn’t that’s misinformation, and an official mod opinion that yes it absolutely does, the Democrats at least some of them are definitely to blame here.
So… are you saying that that’s an okay conversation? Or would it only be reasonable if my reply didn’t exist or was different? Is that all something you would characterize as “vote blue no matter who”?
Thats an ok conversation I guess. But, in order to make your defense, you had to willfully ignore the fact that biden (and both party leaders) have a very pro israel/netanyahu stance and all of them are sponsored by pro israel money which, I believe, is what the comment you replied to was saying, even if this specific issue wasnt directly related to biden Thats what I would call blind/dishonest support for team blue.
Thats an ok conversation I guess
Okay cool. That is my point though! People are painting /c/politics as this weird echo chamber of pro-Israel pro-genocide lovefest for Biden’s policies when it is the total opposite, and then using that as an excuse to be just as partisan and dishonest in the anti- direction as they are claiming (wrongly) that people are being in the pro- direction.
you had to willfully ignore the fact that biden (and both party leaders) have a very pro israel/netanyahu stance
I absolutely do not do that. I actually probably would have been in the comments as one of the people talking about what a bunch of shit it was that Schumer was pushing this stupid idea, except that I got distracted by the totally weird and bad-faith attempt to link it to Biden.
I do think that it’s notable that Biden has nothing to do with this effort. Biden’s actually been deliberately snubbing Bibi from this kind of thing for quite some time, refusing to meet with him in the White House and meeting him in some hotel instead when he finally did sit down with him, and courting his political rivals, all of which I’m sure pisses him off.
That doesn’t honestly mean all that much to me one way or another for as long as he’s providing weapons for the genocide. But if you’re gonna get all up in arms about the US government inviting Netanyahu and giving him honors, I think it might potentially be relevant that Biden actually goes out of his way to do the opposite, and definitely is relevant to call out if someone is trying to link Biden to this thing when he has nothing to do with it.
And again, like you said, the conversation seems fine. It’s an exchange of views. Some I agree with and some I don’t. I don’t see where this “oh no without ozma where we will go for the voice in the wilderness that will say anything against Israel or the US government… on LEMMY…” attitude even comes from, which makes me likely to see it as a disingenuous effort to promote a very, very, very slanted viewpoint as a “counter” to the imaginary attitude.
That is my point though! People are painting /c/politics as this weird echo chamber of pro-Israel pro-genocide lovefest for Biden’s policies when it is the total opposite.
There are certainly users who would prefer that c/politics be what you just described, and enforced as such.
And more often than not is followed by a variation of “vote blue no matter who” or its heavilly downvoted or gets several replies all telling them how dumb and wrong they are.
Or baseless accusations of being a Trump supporter or a Russian shill.
Or just straight up abuse.
Sometimes the accusation is just cowardly implied, as mozz is doing here.
PS: But for some reason is Ozma the one arguing in bad faith.
Pretty sure I was engaging with you purely on the merits of your arguments, in a decent amount of detail, and I actually thought we reached a point of okay not seeing eye to eye but hey I said my bit, I read up what you said, I went and looked and we talked about how the discourse was, and it was all cool to move on. I mean I called you out for the pure strawman of “lots of blind support and promotion for team blue”, but again, purely on the merits, and I thought we had moved on from it and actually had a pretty factual conversation about it.
But sure, if you took me including you in my hey-look-the-instance-distribution-is-hinky list to be a specific accusation against you that I was too cowardly to make directly, I’m happy to talk more about it. I looked over your user; you’ve left 5 messages in this thread, which is more than you’ve ever left before in any thread. You’ve never left even 4 messages in a thread before. Mostly, it’s one-sentence-in-one-message quick takes. Somehow, out of all the possible things to care about in the whole universe of political or technical or societal topics, you suddenly decided that saying that there’s lot of blind support and promotion for team blue and ozma was providing a needed counter balance, was the thing you cared about most out of any conversation you’ve ever had on Lemmy, and started getting super passionate and talkative about.
Also, the longest conversation you’ve ever had other than this was posting another grouping of shill talking points – here, in this thread full of blind support and promotion for team blue. Not voting, and ozma’s user, are apparently the only two things you’ve ever cared about enough to write more than a handful of sentences about in all the time you’ve been on Lemmy.
Having looked over your user, I think it’s pretty likely that you’re a shill, and most of your not-shill contributions to Lemmy are just a smokescreen of a small number of quick messages and one conversation about eclipse glasses. I think the timing of you coming into this particular topic is probably just to deploy here to defend ozma. Again, the truth is that I have no idea, but that’s what seems most likely to me. Does that seem less cowardly?
your profile-stalking is half-assed and won’t ever tell you what you think it does about people, only their user accounts. it’s toxic as fuck.
Removed by mod
Preach!
There lots of comments on ozuma articles saying they are bullshit as well. If people that only post positive stuff don’t get banned it’s just an echo chamber, it’s just as bad faith as only negative at that point.
I am interested in the fact that as of this moment, the pro-ozma speakers in this thread come from:
- kbin.run
- fedia.io
- kbin.earth
- sh.itjust.works
- slrpnk.net
- lemmy.sdf.org
And the anti-ozma speakers come from:
- lemmy.world
- lemm.ee
- lemmy.world
- mbin.grits.dev
- programming.dev
- lemmy.world
- discuss.tchncs.de
- lemmy.world
It is very interesting to me that each individual one of the pro-ozma speakers comes from a different instance, with no repetition. Could be a coincidence of course, but looking over the two lists it’s hard not to notice a clear disparity. And, as a pure hypothetical, it would make it very difficult for any individual admin to detect a duplication of IP address between any two of the accounts. And there’s no lemmy.world. Purely hypothetically speaking of course.
Nice argument; So im some sort of shill/bot/alt now? I guess this conversation is over then.
Removed by mod
It’s likely a coincidence.
I blocked Ozma months ago, because seeing his posts did not spark joy and blocking him has improved my experience on Lemmy, and generally I think this is a good moderator decision. But I hadn’t commented because I mostly agree with the temporary ban and I wasn’t seeing his posts anyway.
I was kbin.social before this until they got unstable.
Might want to add that one.
But please, go through my history and continue to call me an alt
I didn’t say you were an alt; I said the first list looks way way different than the second list.
In the interval while I was typing, a couple of other pro-ozma people from lemmy.world chimed in. But I’m gonna leave it. That’s how it looked when I checked, and the way it looked when I checked is pretty weird.
That’s how it looked when I checked, and the way it looked when I checked is pretty weird.
Must be a conspiracy.
I would find this constant paranoid suspicion of yours more amusing if it weren’t so condescending toward people who do not share your worldview.
Mm yes we must be pro that account and not anti how dumb/silly the reasoning is.
I see it like this, and naturally, I’m biased…
Today I made three threads about court case updates. 1 about the Georgia case, 2 about Florida, because it was new and newsworthy.
If I did a deep dive on Cannon and posted every single misdeed she’s done since becoming a judge, people in the group would be right to go “Hey… um… you OK? Working through some issues?”
If I did it day, after, day, after day and then posted “Yeah, I’m only interested in bad things.” Someone would be right to tell me to go touch grass.
I still cant see how Ozmas posting was in bad faith. Obsesive? Sure, it could be seen that way but it says nothing about their intentions other than they were prioritizing negative/critical news of biden and the dem. party, and I can see why, since theres a strong push back on the fediverse against those types of news.
Coming out and saying “sure there’s some good things, but I’m only interested in bad things” means he’s disingenous in his posting. As I mentioned in another comment, we don’t allow Fox or Newsmax or OANN because it’s clear they have an agenda.
Openly admitting that agenda becomes actionable.
Agree to disagree.
They explicitly said “I prefer to share the bad news” not that it was their only interest and, as I already pointed out, theres a legitimate reason as to why that could be.
Nothing of what ozma posts and comments makes me think they have a pro-trump agenda. I believe your personal opinion of Ozma is influencing how you interpret their words and their banning is based solely on the your assumption of what they meant.
All this said, I could be wrong to since im not inmune to my opinions shaping how I see things but even if I thought they were pro trump, i think the comment in cuestion is not evidence enough of their agenda (or lack there of)
