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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

tl;dr - https://youtu.be/C6BYzLIqKB8#t=7s

  • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    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 @[email protected] 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.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

  • lorty@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    So you’ll be banning people that post only negative news about trump?

  • Cursed@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    @[email protected]

    It’s really disappointing to see you constantly delete comments you perceive as rude or uncivil with extreme vigilance but then be stupid enough to allow bad faith posters like return2ozma repeatedly try to control political narratives for months on end. I’m really tired of seeing your name in the Modlog policing politeness but then sleeping on issues like this. Anyone with half a brain could have recognized ozma’s dishonesty a long time ago.

    You ought to be ashamed of yourself for the mess you’ve allowed to propagate for an extended period of time, you ought to consider extending the 30 day ban to a permanent one, and you have to be better moving forward.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The difference is civility violatons are 100% unambiguous.

      What Ozma was doing required absolute proof and that did not exist until their admission.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think you should have given them a three day ban earlier as a warning. Three day bans are nothing. I used to be a moderator and have been banned myself. Three days is like a timeout, and no one is hurt. It just says “cut it out”.

        • brognak@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Thor from PirateSoftware tells his channel mods to hand out 1-3hr bans like candy. They aren’t overly harsh, and sends the message that your actions are seen and being noted.