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.
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'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
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.
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.
nothing he was doing was bad faith. he was posting stories that were in no way a violation of the policies. he wasn't preventing others from doing the same with stories that he didn't think were worth his time to post.
Flooding the channel with negativity and admitting that's all they're interested in is bad faith.
It buries any positive news someone might like to post because all this user is interested in is the negative.
what do you think bad faith means? it has a specific meaning in regards to law, and a separate one in academic discussion (though they are close), but if your definition is custom fit for this sub and it's written in such a way that this thing that is not bad faith is going to be treated as bad faith, you should be explicit about that definition in the rules.
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
it doesn't sound like you actually found anything to support your claim. if you did, it would still be trivial to link it.