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

  • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
    0·
    24 days ago

    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?

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
        0·
        24 days ago

        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.

        I’m not here to debate this perspective, but you should be aware that this sounds a lot like editorializing.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          24 days ago

          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.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
            0·
            24 days ago

            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

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeEnglish
        0·
        24 days ago

        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 ☕️☀️

      • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        24 days ago

        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.