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]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    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

    • @Rhoeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      221 days ago

      Yeah, I cheer because they’re admittedly here in bad faith to spread bullshit. And they are now muted as a result of it.

      • @eatthecake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        221 days ago

        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.

      • archomrade [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 days ago

        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.

        • @Rhoeri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          121 days ago

          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.