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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Unsurprising to see the usual suspects agitating on this issue in the comments section.
I honestly don’t know how I feel about this, other than that a temp ban is better than a perma-ban. Ozma is annoying as shit, but that’s not a strong admittance of bad faith, even if it’s obvious by his posting to anyone with functioning eyes. At the same time, he does nothing but continuously post this dreck, and a community necessarily must trim bad-faith actors to maintain itself. Otherwise you end up with a shithole like 4chan.
I don’t know. I’m glad it’s not my call.
I didn’t notice, but that’s because I noticed the trend in thier posts awhile ago & decided to block them.
[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.
by admitting he is aware things are not as bad as his posts seem.
Let’s do a little mental exercise. What does this next line imply?
Both good and bad news about Trump is out there. I prefer to share the bad news
The only ones arguing in bad are the ones completely twisting what he said to find an implication that does not exist and accuse him of it.
The irony of someone constantly being banned from here for misinformation, here to defend an admitted propagandist.
Weren’t you just accusing this community of supporting Israel in another post somewhere? Ahh yes, here it is:
You should know /politics and /news ban anyone critical of israel and Lemmy.world is ran by Zionists.
Wasn’t that you?
As I recall, you said you weren’t posting here anymore.
Amazing you managed to not respond to a single argument and went for ad hominems and proving my point.
Nothing here is ad hominem if it’s true. You HAVE been banned for misinformation, you ARE defending OP
There is no argument to respond to as you’ve not made one.
I am unsure why you are appealing to authority in a post questioning said authority.
If you have nothing but ad-hominems I have nothing to respond to anymore.
Point out the ad hominem for me please.
To a certain kind of person, saying they’re wrong is a personal attack.
Oh Linkerbaan, are you really calling out people for not responding to your argument? You, of all people?
Your primary mo is to go in every thread and screech “Zionist” before anyone dares question your posts or comments and you want to talk about ad hominem? Cute.
Let’s do a little mental exercise. What does this next line imply?
Both good and bad news about Trump is out there. I prefer to share the bad news
It implies you are arguing in bad faith. Doesn’t matter whether you are talking about Joe Biden of Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump.
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.
And now that the pro-genocide users have griped long enough and loudly enough to get ozma banned, they’ll find another target.
One can only hope you’re next
don’t feed the trolls 😜❤️ this is precisely the response they wanted
I mean, people have already falsely reported that I’m spreading misinformation. It’s no secret that pro-genocide centrists want me gone.
Falsely? LOL
Yes, falsely. I do not spread misinformation.
Factual information that differs from pro-genocide centrist orthodoxy is not misinformation.
ROFL… hopefully one day, you will be embarrassed by having said shit like this. It’ll mean you’ve grown.
pro-genocide users
Speaking of bad faith…
Speaking of finding another target.
making a self fulfilling prophecy like “if i get banned it’s because of ‘pro genocide users’” and not taking accountability for your own actions is a very trump circa 2019-20 thing to do
heads up lol
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?
If you’re posting to Aww? Absolutely.
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.
But he didn’t fuck off. You did.
Blocking bad faith people only cedes ground to them.
Oh please. You are here to consume content, as a leisure activity. There’s no obligation to hold your nose for some standard of witness or something.
It’s a discussion forum. The ENTIRE POINT is to discuss things.
So you’ll be banning people that post only negative news about trump?
The mod already answered a similar question:
So the rule was spamming? They should make that an actual rule then instead of banning people for posting articles supporting their opinion.
That’s not what he said.
I guess it’s a combination of spamming plus one point of view. That still doesn’t really strike me as bannable, as most people will post articles they agree with and hence want to share that way. As long as the posted articles are true, then the only issue I see is the spamming part, which is the only thing I agree could be an issue.
It’s not bannable if you do it once, or even a few times per day. Not even for a few weeks or months on and off. But when you do it 10-20 times per day, every day of the week, for months and months on end, and the shtick is always directed at a particular narrative, and if you bomb comment sections below each thread with combative, dismissive rhetorical punches that show you’re just trying to push a narrative, and if you openly admit you’re doing it to favor one narrative over others, then yeah. That’s pretty classic trolling and definitely bannable. Just take a look at the number of posts R2O has made since they created their account. It’s actually insane to think of the daily rate that entails.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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/
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 ☕️☀️
I generally agree with your reasoning. In a ranked choice world, they would likely have a candidate they would back, and support. I think many of us here would be happy to be in that world.
Reminder for everyone to vote every election, and local and state are super important, it’s where you have a chance to get ranked choice in the discussion.
Unfortunately, implementing ranked choice nationwide requires politicians who are responsive to the will of the people.
If we had that, we would already have what we needed ranked choice for.
So I am assuming that everyone here enthusiastically posts pro Trump posts all day right?
This is blatant censorship.
But it isn’t. It’s shutting down an admitted propagandist.
If you don’t like the title, don’t do the work.
So, you did read the article, thanks.
Social media platforms train users to communicate as propagandists: Recent research shows that platform users learn to express polarizing emotions like outrage through “social learning.” Social media users are taught through app feedback – positive reinforcement through notifications – and peer-learning – what they see others do – to post outrage even if they don’t feel outraged and they don’t want to spread outrage.
The more outrage we see, the more outrage we post.
Very disappointing. This is a politics group, not a news group. Politics is entirely about opinion and views on how to operate society. This is exactly the place for someone to post content that aligns with their political, moral, and philosophical views, even if that doesn’t align with your own. There is no such thing as a neutral observer in politics, and trying to force it just biases this group toward what the moderators view as “neutral” through their own biases. While bad faith posting (spam, etc) is a concern, it needs to be clearly defined and distinguished from simply expressing strong political opinions. Silencing voices for perceived bias undermines the purpose of political discussion.
I am interested by how thoroughly you are mischaracterizing what jordanlund took time to explain in detail as far as what was the issue – i.e. the dishonesty, and not the political slant.
I don’t think I’m alone in saying that the mod team here gives way more leniency to slanted political posters and allows them to speak their mind, than the community as a whole thinks is reasonable (actually I think for pretty much exactly the reasons you’re laying out.)
“Both good and bad news about Biden is out there. I prefer to share the bad news. But you know that already.” (Emphasis mine)
I cannot see how that is an admission of bad faith (or dishonest as the mod said in the original post) in any fair interpretation. Unless you are defining “bad faith” as “something I disagree with” or “something that hurts my argument”.
Starting with the result (who will benefit, who will look good and bad because of the analysis), and then looking for news that serves that conclusion, is dishonest. To me, and apparently to the mod team (or jordanlund at least).
Starting with the news, and arriving at the result (who looks good and who looks bad as determined by what happened), is honest. Again, this is my definition. You might have a different one which might also be reasonable, sure.
