this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
141 points (77.0% liked)

politics

19241 readers
2259 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

(page 7) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (45 children)

Thats not a bad faith argument anymore than a liberal posting something bad about trump because it fits their narrative. Like many leftists I hate democrats more than Republicans because Republicans don't pretend to care. Republicans will tell you to your face who they are, democrats will lie to your face about inclusion and acceptance and proceed to legislate like their conservative counterparts.

load more comments (45 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Welcome to Reddit 2.0 I guess.

I personally HATE having 10 articles all about the same thing posted and reposted. Then reposted again for the next week as if they're new. The anti-Big-D-Democratic posts of this user were not reposted. They brought new stories from places I wouldn't visit and read or have in my biased news feed. Everyone's "news feed" is biased, it learns what you engage with even if you try to be unbiased.

Banning people who post differing opinions is shitty. It becomes an echo chamber. Today it is Trump and Biden. But .

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

As far as I know, lemmy does not “learn what you engage with”.

Saying “everything is biased” is not a good justification for encouraging intentional bad-faith behavior.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I think I agree more with the spam angle than the "only bad news" angle. As others have said it's fine to have a viewpoint and mainly share articles in line with that viewpoint. However doing it many times per day, every day, when the number of posts here is limited anyway, does impact the community.

In any case, the main thing is to be consistent and ideally make whatever the rule is very clear. And I would say this should be turned into an explicit rule or explanation under an existing rule.

Personally I just read what I want to, and if it seems bad faith, downvote and move on.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

A rate limit would make far more sense than whatever this is.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Is there anything preventing a banned user from making another account though?

This always felt like an empty threat even on a centralised platform like reddit but on the fediverse it seems like it would be unenforceable?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

Not really, but generally the ones who do that, frankly, aren't very smart about it and get nuked for ban evasion pretty quickly.

The mods and admins have a back channel chat and we compare notes a lot. "Oh, god, this guy again..."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Do you think this ban is fairly nonpartisan?

Would you also ban a user that only posts negative Trump stories and admits to that?

I agree r2o was getting to be a bit much, and the temp ban seems appropriate, but I'd want to see a policy like this applied fairly and evenly.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If someone pumped the gas and was posting dozens and dozens of pro or anti Trump stuff? Yeah, I think I'd do the same.

We did have quite a few pro-Trump posts as he was winning primaries, which made logical sense. I'm also planning on megathreads in July and August for both conventions.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Has anyone been banned for only posting good stuff about Biden?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Or banned for posting only negative stuff about trump? I don't really post, but I'm definitely "guilty" of always being critical of trump, and most Republicans in general in my comments.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

That's the thing: you're not spamming it.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hard to tell when the front page was flooded with negative posts from one user.

If we start seeing a bunch of "Biden is the best President we've ever had!!!1!!" posts from the same user over and over, obviously I'd consider it. :)

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago

This is the exact point. He was banned for spamming the same thing over and over. It was boring!

After I blocked him myself I realized he contributed nothing but drama. Go on Twitter if you want to create drama

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›