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.
Lmao
Edit: I look forward to the ban on pugjesus for his incessant agenda-posting.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
So you’ll be banning people that post only negative news about trump?
The mod already answered a similar question:
We have negative posts on here when Trump as much as farts. If there is anything bad faith it is claiming that there is a balance in positive and negative posts about Trump.
But…. mUh WHaTaBoUT!
Check the mod logs. FAR more posts are removed for arguing WITH leftists than posts BY leftists.
And no one here believes R2O is even a leftist. Dude is a straight up propagandist.
So the rule was spamming? They should make that an actual rule then instead of banning people for posting articles supporting their opinion.
Theres a lot to break down here, but that seems like bullshit.
I only post negative comments about Biden. Am I gonna get banned for never saying anything nice about the president?
I’ve been calling this out since I’ve joined. I’m glad he’s gone.
Hell yes. But the mod logs don’t show a ban.
The mod logs aren’t showing them banned at all, Is there something I’m missing?
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! 🥳
Oh no a clearly leftist user said bad things about Biden. Next thing you know he posts bad things abuot israel too.
Hey look my 1month ban for absolutely nothing just expired. At least its clear now that criticism of Biden == Ban.
What’s the difference between r/conservative and c/politics, the color of the MAGA hat?
I think his comments are more damming evidence of his bad faith engagement than what’s being presented in this post. None of his articles were lies, and considering how most people only share the good, being committed to only sharing the bad to give some fucking perspective isn’t in and of itself necessarily bad faith engagement.
Anyone seeing this and unfamiliar with Ozma may look at this and see it being a bit of an extreme reaction. Dude has plenty of comments that support the fact he wasn’t just adding perspective, though, that could be added for more context.
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.
So I am assuming that everyone here enthusiastically posts pro Trump posts all day right?
This is blatant censorship.
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.
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.
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.
‘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?
- 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.
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.
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?
Well said.
Removed by mod
