Voters remain largely divided over whether they prefer Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Kamala Harris to handle key economic issues, although Harris earns slightly better marks on elements such as taxes for the middle class.
and fully opposite anything resembling a leftist goal.
Is this a leftist politics magazine? Or was it intended to be more neutral? If it was named /m/VoteBlue or something then that’s make more sense - but in fact I see there are separate magazines for moderate politics and progressive politics (that this one is partnered with).
it’s been beyond clear for two months that this user intends to sway it,
I mean that’s probably true for most of us as well. (We want to sway it to a Harris win, naturally.)
lemmy.ml banned this user yesterday for being a troll. Isn’t it about time that lemmy.world did also?
I’m not sure lemmy.ml is the best example to follow here. Lots of users block the instance outright because of their censorship policies.
Ironically, a ban from lemmy.ml is likely a point in favour of this user - as tankies seem unlikely to be the type to ban a Russian troll on the Russian gov’t payroll, strongly suggesting that this user is in fact not that.
You can try to use the fact that the script attempts to be objective against it, sure. That’s just called “bad faith”. 11.6% of a person’s day is a lot, and you don’t get to just erase this important piece:
None of this takes into account time reading others’ posts/comments, or alts this user may secretly have.
The most active posters on Lemmy rarely compare to this, and I’ve yet to see anyone as singularly focused. Not to mention the copypasta aspect which the script does a decent job of highlighting.
Is this a leftist politics magazine?
Lemmy is a leftist place. Sounds like it’s not for you. No one is interested in your troll apologia.
So to clarify, I’m not saying that 11.6% of a person’s day is a small amount of time, but I was under the impression somehow that the account was actually spending more time that than on the fediverse.
and you don’t get to just erase this important piece:
None of this takes into account time reading others’ posts/comments, or alts this user may secretly have.
Didn’t mean to erase it. Rather, it seems we’re lacking confident data on these points, so I didn’t have anything intelligent to add. Just at this point we can’t quite rule out the extreme case of the user having zero alts, and a reasonable amount time for reading posts/comments. (Worth pointing out there’s a certain irony here - some folks argue this must be a shared account (one account used by many), while here the argument seems to be that this person must have alts (many accounts used by one)).
You can try to use the fact that the script attempts to be subjective against it, sure.
Aren’t I doing the opposite? I’m using the objective data on the script to call for caution here and questioning assumptions. (Of course, I remain open to further evidence. Just so I’m not accused of being vague, here’s one example that would change my mind: if someone suggests with a high probability these accounts are controlled by one person/entity/group and has the data to back it up, and the combined data on the accounts shows a 24/7 level of activity, I’d concede.)
That’s just called “bad faith”.
For the above reasons, I respectively disagree. I’ll also point out what I did not say, to further show I’m operating in good faith:
I never said he couldn’t be a bot account or a shared account, just that the evidence leaned against this.
I never said he couldn’t be a GOP supporter (he says he hasn’t but I keep pointing out that evidence wise it’s inconclusive).
I never said I unconditionally support his posts or comments. In fact I quoted a mod who had a disapproving opinion about them (even while explaining why).
No one is interested in your troll apologia.
Ultimately, I feel like this should be a case of “innocent unless proven guilty.” A ban should be treated like a pretty big deal, so folks should have the evidence prepared to justify one. And by pointing out flaws or gaps in the specific reason (it’s a bot account), folks get a chance to shore up the argument to address the flaws and make it stronger. So if you want, this could be a productive back and forth.
Lemmy is a leftist place. Sounds like it’s not for you.
This is the first time - like ever - that I’ve been accused of not being leftist enough. Typically it’s the opposite. You should run this same analysis on my posts and comments.
Also, the issue with lemmy.ml isn’t that it’s too leftist but that it’s too tankie. Censorship heavy with an aim to ignoring abuses by regimes still following Marxism or those having just recently left it…
Hadn’t realized it was so little.
Is this a leftist politics magazine? Or was it intended to be more neutral? If it was named /m/VoteBlue or something then that’s make more sense - but in fact I see there are separate magazines for moderate politics and progressive politics (that this one is partnered with).
I mean that’s probably true for most of us as well. (We want to sway it to a Harris win, naturally.)
I’m not sure lemmy.ml is the best example to follow here. Lots of users block the instance outright because of their censorship policies.
Ironically, a ban from lemmy.ml is likely a point in favour of this user - as tankies seem unlikely to be the type to ban a Russian troll on the Russian gov’t payroll, strongly suggesting that this user is in fact not that.
You can try to use the fact that the script attempts to be objective against it, sure. That’s just called “bad faith”. 11.6% of a person’s day is a lot, and you don’t get to just erase this important piece:
The most active posters on Lemmy rarely compare to this, and I’ve yet to see anyone as singularly focused. Not to mention the copypasta aspect which the script does a decent job of highlighting.
Lemmy is a leftist place. Sounds like it’s not for you. No one is interested in your troll apologia.
I didn’t mean to say otherwise. What I wrote was
So to clarify, I’m not saying that 11.6% of a person’s day is a small amount of time, but I was under the impression somehow that the account was actually spending more time that than on the fediverse.
Didn’t mean to erase it. Rather, it seems we’re lacking confident data on these points, so I didn’t have anything intelligent to add. Just at this point we can’t quite rule out the extreme case of the user having zero alts, and a reasonable amount time for reading posts/comments. (Worth pointing out there’s a certain irony here - some folks argue this must be a shared account (one account used by many), while here the argument seems to be that this person must have alts (many accounts used by one)).
Aren’t I doing the opposite? I’m using the objective data on the script to call for caution here and questioning assumptions. (Of course, I remain open to further evidence. Just so I’m not accused of being vague, here’s one example that would change my mind: if someone suggests with a high probability these accounts are controlled by one person/entity/group and has the data to back it up, and the combined data on the accounts shows a 24/7 level of activity, I’d concede.)
For the above reasons, I respectively disagree. I’ll also point out what I did not say, to further show I’m operating in good faith:
I never said he couldn’t be a bot account or a shared account, just that the evidence leaned against this.
I never said he couldn’t be a GOP supporter (he says he hasn’t but I keep pointing out that evidence wise it’s inconclusive).
I never said I unconditionally support his posts or comments. In fact I quoted a mod who had a disapproving opinion about them (even while explaining why).
Ultimately, I feel like this should be a case of “innocent unless proven guilty.” A ban should be treated like a pretty big deal, so folks should have the evidence prepared to justify one. And by pointing out flaws or gaps in the specific reason (it’s a bot account), folks get a chance to shore up the argument to address the flaws and make it stronger. So if you want, this could be a productive back and forth.
This is the first time - like ever - that I’ve been accused of not being leftist enough. Typically it’s the opposite. You should run this same analysis on my posts and comments.
Also, the issue with lemmy.ml isn’t that it’s too leftist but that it’s too tankie. Censorship heavy with an aim to ignoring abuses by regimes still following Marxism or those having just recently left it…