A quick note on the return2ozma ban:

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:

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/61667ae3-482f-44fa-9b80-374c150c5bae.jpeg

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

Kolanaki ,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

I think his comments are more damming evidence of his bad faith engagement than what's being presented in this post. None of his articles were lies, and considering how most people only share the good, being committed to only sharing the bad to give some fucking perspective isn't in and of itself necessarily bad faith engagement.

Anyone seeing this and unfamiliar with Ozma may look at this and see it being a bit of an extreme reaction. Dude has plenty of comments that support the fact he wasn't just adding perspective, though, that could be added for more context.

Cursed ,

@jordanlund

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 OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

The difference is civility violatons are 100% unambiguous.

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

KevonLooney ,

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 ,

Thor from PirateSoftware tells his 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.

Linkerbaan ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Oh no a clearly leftist user said bad things about Biden. Next thing you know he posts bad things abuot israel too.

Hey look my 1month ban for absolutely nothing just expired. At least its clear now that criticism of Biden == Ban.

What's the difference between r/conservative and c/politics, the color of the MAGA hat?

Thrashy ,
@Thrashy@lemmy.world avatar

Absolutely nothing? Were you spinning "Israeli interests secretly control the entire world" conspiracy theories over here too, or was that just in c/technology?

Linkerbaan ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Oh look it's another made up ad-hominem. Responding to the actual argument is too hard so let's just change the subject.

Thrashy ,
@Thrashy@lemmy.world avatar

Unfortunately I can't bring reciepts on account of your screeds getting rightfully binned by the moderators, but there is a difference between:

"The Jewish people have a strong history of valuing education that's put a lot of them into the middle and upper classes and have also historically been the victims of vicious oppression, and the Israeli state has never been shy about using either of those things as a cudgel to get away with their own human rights abuses"

and

"Israel is secretly in control of Intel and other vast swathes of the Western economy and are manipulating everything behind the scenes for their nefarious ends!"

The latter of which is what you were spewing in the Technology community a few weeks ago and earned the ban-hammer over there, and which makes up a not-inconsiderable part of the rest of your comment history. I find Israel's history of oppression -- which, to be clear, extends not just to Palestinians but to the non-Ashkenazi Jewish diaspora as well -- and their current war crime spree in Gaza utterly abhorrent, but you've let yourself run all the way to "actually the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were kinda true" in opposition, and that's some racist shit which you've been rightly banned over from multiple communities. You can oppose the Israeli state without engaging in rank antisemitism.

Linkerbaan , (edited )
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

straw man ad hominem straw man ad hominem. Make up random lies. Wow great arguments so far.

JimSamtanko ,

Looking at your comment history, it seems you attack everyone that disagrees with you or calls you out of ad hominem.

Do you even know what that means? You came here in defense of someone that was banned for reasons posted, only to replace those reasons with your own and accused the mods of bias.

And you’re now crying ad hominem?

JimSamtanko ,

Dude, the modlogs show how often your shit is removed for misinformation.

brbposting ,

Bet you I would pretty much hate the vast majority of that user’s comments

Also I don’t want to see spam

With that context set, why am I posting?

Evaluating only the screenshot and nothing else, the struck text appeared inaccurate. Sharing my feedback to help hone practices going forward.

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/f188e99a-4399-4120-829f-7d449c01f32b.jpeg

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@lemmy.world avatar

Unsurprising to see the usual suspects agitating on this issue in the comments section.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this, other than that a temp ban is better than a perma-ban. Ozma is annoying as shit, but that's not a strong admittance of bad faith, even if it's obvious by his posting to anyone with functioning eyes. At the same time, he does nothing but continuously post this dreck, and a community necessarily must trim bad-faith actors to maintain itself. Otherwise you end up with a shithole like 4chan.

I don't know. I'm glad it's not my call.

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

It's tough you know? I can't tell you how many times I looked at reports and gave them the benefit of doubt, then hit this one and was like "Ok, yup, it's time."

Looking at the coments here there's lots on both sides, folks who are like "yeah, I blocked him ages ago!" to "how dare you!"

FWIW, I've been in touch with them in PMs, there's no hard feelings on either side, we'll see how it shakes out when they're back.

bloodfart ,

Mostly right there with you. It’s disturbing to see mods just publicly admitting their process is capricious and wack expecting to be congratulated and lauded for openness.

I never thought I’d be posting AMAB next to a lib.

bloodfart ,

Theres a lot to break down here, but that seems like bullshit.

I only post negative comments about Biden. Am I gonna get banned for never saying anything nice about the president?

IndustryStandard ,

So I am assuming that everyone here enthusiastically posts pro Trump posts all day right?

This is blatant censorship.

JimSamtanko , (edited )

But it isn’t. It’s shutting down an admitted propagandist.

TokenBoomer ,

# We are all propagandists now

JimSamtanko ,

If you don’t like the title, don’t do the work.

TokenBoomer ,

So, you did read the article, thanks.

Social media platforms train users to communicate as propagandists: Recent research shows that platform users learn to express polarizing emotions like outrage through “social learning.” Social media users are taught through app feedback – positive reinforcement through notifications – and peer-learning – what they see others do – to post outrage even if they don’t feel outraged and they don’t want to spread outrage. 

The more outrage we see, the more outrage we post.

electric_nan ,

Lmao

Edit: I look forward to the ban on pugjesus for his incessant agenda-posting.

JimSamtanko ,

Go ahead and do a comparison. I’ll wait here.

PugJesus , (edited )
@PugJesus@lemmy.world avatar

... have I EVER made a thread on here?

Shit, going down through my posts on PoliticalMemes there's not even a pattern. Over the past week, I've got:

  1. Making fun of a Trumpism

  2. "'Fascist' is overused online"

  3. A post critical of China's anti-LGBT policy - I guess we can count that one as a "LIBERAL AGENDA" moment if we really want to stretch

  4. "Why do online fascists always have anime profile pics"

  5. "Reagan was a homophobic murderous shithead"

  6. "MAGA doesn't understand what socialism is, they just hate gay people"

  7. Pro-Palestine post

What's... what's the agenda, based on my posts? Like, obviously, I get that I'm a shitlib to you people, but I don't flood communities with agendaposting.

Catoblepas ,

Kind of incredible someone can be banned for posting too many negative stories about Biden (and admitting they like posting them, I guess?) while the mods here ignore users that post comments denying that specific homophobic instances occurred. Happy Pride! 🥳

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Well, we don't have time to read every comment in every post.

If there are problems, make sure you report them! That's what we see first and foremost!

Catoblepas ,

I did, that’s why they’re already banned on Blahaj.

Edit: Also, I literally just spoke to you about it right now and the comments are still up on lemmy.world, so I’m not sure what message I’m supposed to take here other than these comments don’t break the rules.

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

I haven't had time to go back and review the chain you're talking about, re-report it and I'll grab it when I have the chance.

Catoblepas ,

I can’t re-report it, they’re banned on blahaj and the comments have been purged for me. Also my client (maybe instance?) doesn’t allow re-reporting.

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Got it, I'll come back through the comment link when I have the chance!

Catoblepas ,

Should I take that these comments are still up near 24 hours later with no follow up to mean that they don’t break any rules?

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Starting from here:

https://lemmy.world/comment/10473647

Yeah, there's nothing actionable there. The downvotes and replies do the job.

Guy is making a provably false argument, that's proven to be false.

Catoblepas ,

So to sum up:

Posting “too many” true but negative things about Biden - Bannable

Posting denials of specific, provable homophobic incidents and only interacting with posts about LGBT issues to do that specifically: somehow doesn’t violate the civility rule despite being homophobic or the rule on good faith interaction

Thanks for being honest about where your priorities lie.

There were two comment threads by the way, not sure if you looked at the other since you only mention one.

Happy Pride 🥳

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Nothing in their comments is overtly homophobic. He's arguing that someone didn't say something they clearly said as a college student.

All of which is provably false as per the comments and downvotes.

Catoblepas ,

Sorry, I didn’t mean to give the impression that I was open to debate over whether it’s homophobic to deny a politician spouting homophobia (when he literally admitted he did so) and deny that a pastor called LGBTQ+ movement demonic when there is video of it (did you even read the second link to this thread? You still seem to think there was only one thread). It is homophobic, full stop.

There is not a non-homophobic reason to go to multiple threads about LGBT people having bigotry aimed at them and to deny that it’s happening.

So if you could explain to me how homophobia doesn’t violate the rules I’d appreciate it.

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

What he's engaging in, in the second link, is Christian apology, not overt homophobia. He's not saying LGBTQ+ is the devil, he's explaining why Christians might believe that.

Which is a whole OTHER deal:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

Again, not actionable. If they were to come out and say themselves "I'm homophobic" or "gays are teh debbil" then, yeah, that would be removed.

But this whole "homophobia because it's two steps removed"? Not so much.

Catoblepas ,

Oopsie, thought I was clear about this: I don’t care how you justify it as not homophobia. It is homophobic to come into posts only about bigotry being aimed at LGBT people to deny that it’s happening.

If it makes you uncomfortable to sit with the fact that you’re fine with running a community where homophobic comments are welcome, then good. It should. That’s a choice you’re making that you can change at any time.

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

The comments are not, in and of themselves, homophobic. Not actionable.

Catoblepas ,

I don’t know why you think I’m interested in hearing you deny that these homophobic comments are homophobic, but if you need to be told again explicitly: I’m not interested in hearing it and I’m also not debating it.

If you need help understanding why it’s homophobic to deny that bigoted comments are being aimed at LGBT people or don’t understand how that fosters an environment hostile to LGBT people generally, feel free to ask.

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Because you are the one continuing to demand they be removed for homophobia when they are not, by themselves, homophobic.

I've explained to you, repeatedly, why they are not actionable. I can't help you accept that fact, but guilt by association is not against the rules.

Ping me when they, themselves, are being homophobic. As of now they are not.

Catoblepas ,

OK, since it wasn’t clear to you before, I understand that your position as a mod is that homophobia is only homophobia if it fits a middle aged straight man’s cartoon caricature of what homophobia looks like. Unfortunately that doesn’t fit the real world experience of LGBT people dealing with homophobia.

If you need help understanding why calling the LGBT community demonic is homophobic or why denying that bigoted speech against LGBT people even happens is homophobic you can ask for help at any time. Until then this is just a community where veiled homophobia is welcome. Again, this is a choice you have made and can change at any time.

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

(sigh) One more time...

That user DID NOT call the LGBT community demonic.

If they did, that comment would have been removed.

What that user DID DO was explain what justifcation a Christian fanatic would have for doing so.

Doing it themself? Homophobia.
Talking about why someone else did it is NOT HOMOPHOBIA.

And for the person reporting my other comment, my having to explain this is ALSO not homophobia!

This discussion is over.

Catoblepas , (edited )

If you don’t have anything to say other than “nuh uh this isn’t homophobia” then please just stop replying, it’s pointless.

Multiple times I’ve offered to educate you (which you are clearly not interested in). You denied that saying the LGBT community is demonic is even homophobic itself, by hand waving it away as Christian theology (as though the two are unrelated to begin with, much less exclusive). I did not say the user specifically said that. I’m saying that excusing and denying it is not a significant difference. Please at least read what I’m saying if you’re going to condescendingly explain to me what homophobia is.

I’m fine with this discussion being over, you’ve made your position very clear. Especially to anyone who wants a green light on what types of homophobic comments are acceptable here.

Again, if you want any education on this I am more than happy to help you out. But until you grok this you’re going to miss more homophobic comments and foster an environment where homophobia is welcome.

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

You are clearly misrepresenting what I am explaining to you in no uncertain terms:

You denied that saying the LGBT community is demonic is even homophobic itself,

Here's what I LITERALLY TOLD YOU:

That user DID NOT call the LGBT community demonic.
If they did, that comment would have been removed.

Let me explain it to you like this...

Someone makes an incredibly stupid comment.

I explain why they might think that way.

That does NOT, in and of itself, make ME stupid. It's not an agreement or an endorsement of their stupidity, it's not a value judgement at all. It's an explanation.

So some idiot preacher makes an INCREDIBLY vile and homophobic video.

Somebody else explains how that tracks because Christianity has a skewed world view.

That does not make that comment intrinsically homophobic.

Had they gone "He's right! X, Y, and Z!" that would be homophobic and would have been removed.

THAT IS NOT WHAT HE DID.

Catoblepas ,

If you can’t finish reading my sentences please don’t respond to me. I clearly stated that I was not trying to say the user called the LGBT community demonic. I’m saying that defending that statement by denying that it even happened or saying that it’s not homophobic because it’s a Christian theological point are themselves forms of homophobia that LGBT people encounter all the time. If you are fine with that then you are fine with homophobia in this community.

If you believe anything else you’ve said has been misrepresented feel free to have a polite discussion with me about it. Right now it seems like you just want me to say that the comments weren’t actually homophobic when they are.

The Blahaj admins had no problems instantly recognizing the account for what it was and banning them as well as removing the homophobic comments. I don’t think I’m imagining homophobia here as you’re implying.

Again, if you have any questions about how this is homophobic I am more than happy to help you understand. But what’s not going to happen is convincing me it’s not homophobic. If that’s your only intent then this conversation is best left here.

jordanlund OP Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

You do know that your entire comment history is visible here, right? You get that?

So when you say now "I clearly stated that I was not trying to say the user called the LGBT community demonic."

That's EXACTLY what you're saying when you demand, repeatedly, that their comment be removed for homophobia.

If the user did not make that assertion, the comment is NOT removable.

Here's what they said:

"The organizations supporting the movement are acting on reasoning based on philosophy that Christianity has historically identified with the devil. It's no joke his language is theological, i identify this as a Christian perspective. He's probably identifying the philosophy since the organizations themselves he labels as demonic. Obviously, he never said the people are demonic, and as fake news this article is, they manipulate to say he's accusing the homosexuals as being demonic. It's a fake news tactic."

There is not one word of homophobia in that quote. Not a single word. It is not removable and will not be removed, at least by me.

You're free to disagree, you're free to downvote, it does not break the rules.

Catoblepas ,

I literally can’t downvote you or see downvotes, I’m on Blahaj.

If you don’t understand that someone can be homophobic without saying “I’m a homophobe and hate gay people” then you’re just illustrating my point here. Homophobia is welcome in this community as long as you give it the slightest veil.

If you have any questions about how the comments I linked are homophobic I am happy to answer them at any time. At this point you still seem uninterested.

Please do not contact me again only to attempt to convince me that the user banned from the instance I’m on for being a bigot wasn’t actually being bigoted.

WoahWoah ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    Catoblepas ,

    Goodbye 👋😙

    Rhoeri ,
    @Rhoeri@lemmy.world avatar

    The mod logs aren’t showing them banned at all,
    Is there something I’m missing?

    jordanlund OP Mod ,
    @jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

    I'm not sure why it didn't hit the modlog, unless the remove content script is still running.

    Rhoeri ,
    @Rhoeri@lemmy.world avatar

    Yeah… odd.

    JimSamtanko , (edited )

    A well-known propagandist gets banned from a news community and guess who losers their minds over it.

    The explanation is sound. They even agreed that what they were posing wasn’t necessarily wrong, but it was clearly overtly biased and to a single purpose. Essentially… propaganda.

    eatthecake ,

    So people who only post positive articles are also propagandists who should be banned?

    I really don't understand how this is classed as bad faith, which wikipedia describes as:

    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. >

    JimSamtanko ,

    Dude also shared a lot of misinformation and blogs as news.

    Check the logs yourself and stop white-knighting for a known propagandist.

    lorty ,
    @lorty@lemmy.ml avatar

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

    Blackbeard ,
    @Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

    The mod already answered a similar question:

    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.

    IndustryStandard ,

    We have negative posts on here when Trump as much as farts. If there is anything bad faith it is claiming that there is a balance in positive and negative posts about Trump.

    Blackbeard ,
    @Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

    No one claimed that.

    JimSamtanko ,

    But…. mUh WHaTaBoUT!

    Check the mod logs. FAR more posts are removed for arguing WITH leftists than posts BY leftists.

    And no one here believes R2O is even a leftist. Dude is a straight up propagandist.

    Shyfer ,

    So the rule was spamming? They should make that an actual rule then instead of banning people for posting articles supporting their opinion.

    Blackbeard ,
    @Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

    That's not what he said.

    Shyfer ,

    I guess it's a combination of spamming plus one point of view. That still doesn't really strike me as bannable, as most people will post articles they agree with and hence want to share that way. As long as the posted articles are true, then the only issue I see is the spamming part, which is the only thing I agree could be an issue.

    Blackbeard ,
    @Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

    It's not bannable if you do it once, or even a few times per day. Not even for a few weeks or months on and off. But when you do it 10-20 times per day, every day of the week, for months and months on end, and the shtick is always directed at a particular narrative, and if you bomb comment sections below each thread with combative, dismissive rhetorical punches that show you're just trying to push a narrative, and if you openly admit you're doing it to favor one narrative over others, then yeah. That's pretty classic trolling and definitely bannable. Just take a look at the number of posts R2O has made since they created their account. It's actually insane to think of the daily rate that entails.

    btaf45 ,

    [if ALL you’re posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. ]

    It's okay to do that about a specific politician if that is your true opinion. However, it does seem like this person was arguing in bad faith by admitting he is aware things are not as bad as his posts seem.

    jordanlund OP Mod ,
    @jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

    https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a3adb671-1502-4f6c-96e0-1e74500d9645.jpeg

    Linkerbaan ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    by admitting he is aware things are not as bad as his posts seem.

    Let's do a little mental exercise. What does this next line imply?

    Both good and bad news about Trump is out there. I prefer to share the bad news

    The only ones arguing in bad are the ones completely twisting what he said to find an implication that does not exist and accuse him of it.

    Rhoeri ,
    @Rhoeri@lemmy.world avatar

    The irony of someone constantly being banned from here for misinformation, here to defend an admitted propagandist.

    Weren’t you just accusing this community of supporting Israel in another post somewhere? Ahh yes, here it is:

    You should know /politics and /news ban anyone critical of israel and Lemmy.world is ran by Zionists.

    Wasn’t that you?

    As I recall, you said you weren’t posting here anymore.

    Linkerbaan ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    Amazing you managed to not respond to a single argument and went for ad hominems and proving my point.

    Rhoeri ,
    @Rhoeri@lemmy.world avatar

    Nothing here is ad hominem if it’s true. You HAVE been banned for misinformation, you ARE defending OP

    There is no argument to respond to as you’ve not made one.

    Linkerbaan ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    I am unsure why you are appealing to authority in a post questioning said authority.

    If you have nothing but ad-hominems I have nothing to respond to anymore.

    Rhoeri ,
    @Rhoeri@lemmy.world avatar

    Point out the ad hominem for me please.

    sensiblepuffin ,
    @sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world avatar

    To a certain kind of person, saying they're wrong is a personal attack.

    Rhoeri ,
    @Rhoeri@lemmy.world avatar

    Yeah, seriously. With this specific person, all you have to do is ask a question. If the answer doesn’t benefit their agenda in any way, it’s a personal attack.

    TheFonz ,

    Oh Linkerbaan, are you really calling out people for not responding to your argument? You, of all people?

    Your primary mo is to go in every thread and screech "Zionist" before anyone dares question your posts or comments and you want to talk about ad hominem? Cute.

    btaf45 ,

    Let’s do a little mental exercise. What does this next line imply?

    Both good and bad news about Trump is out there. I prefer to share the bad news

    It implies you are arguing in bad faith. Doesn't matter whether you are talking about Joe Biden of Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump.

    InquisitiveApathy ,

    Normally I'm not one to even entertain the thought of commenting on a political thread, but I feel it would be disingenuous to click the button without any feedback in this case. This decision leaves me with a large enough lack of confidence in the future moderation of this community(especially given we're in an election year) such that I can't in good faith leave it on my feed and I will be blocking this comm after this comment.

    While I agree that Ozma deserved a ban for spam, the justification used for this is frankly appalling. Misrepresentation of bias as bad-faith, especially with the admission that largely good sources were used is unacceptable.

    Theprogressivist ,
    @Theprogressivist@lemmy.world avatar

    I've been calling this out since I've joined. I'm glad he's gone.

    JimSamtanko ,

    Hell yes. But the mod logs don’t show a ban.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •