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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 2 years ago* (2 children)
  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (20 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • load more comments (20 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

    Dude admitted to being a propagandist. You have no argument here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    he was posting stories from reputable sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And ONLY certain stories that fit a narrative. How is this part being ignored?

    Oh… I get it. You also support that narrative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (18 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    And if you check the mod logs, not ALL of what they shared was legitimate.

    you know what, fair point. of course, that's sort of what mods are for, and i think that the power to decide which sources are legitimate is itself the power to propagandize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Look at that… a bad-faith argument! Who could have exp-

    I could have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • load more comments (17 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)