I think we have the same view on this, except I don't have cognitive dissonance over the ban - the ban was for a repeating behaviour of reposting/repeat posts, rather than the person's stubbornness over the whole spoiler effect/FPTP means only two real choices thing.
Also, it's temporary and just one magazine (rather than, say, the entire instance).
Pyfedi / piefed.social has a take on this that you might find interesting.
For example, pyfedi allows for anonymous voting, but I believe there's a planned change (if it isn't already implemented and live) so that folks with a low reputation (from too many downvotes) can't use it. By default, comments and posts with too low a reputation are also hidden. This is handled automatically by the software, so no human moderator or admin has to do anything - if enough people downvote, the system enforces the consequences automatically.
I have a similar experience. E.g. https://lemmy.world/comment/12591604 - the user was pretty friendly to me and chill about it when I let them know that one of their posts helped me convince a third party voter to vote Harris instead.
I agree with this. The rule applied to justify the ban seems to be rule 3 - by posting the same article from multiple sources, it's a repost. And IIRC this user has had articles removed in the past for the same reason (in fact leading up to new rules, e.g. the ones against linking to aggregators and the one that was put in place related to posting 19 articles in a single day) - so the multiple posts removed criteria was also met.
If you're the one telling others to not vote, that means you're the one on the wrong side.
Agreed. The two-way runoff requires a new round of voting - since voters preferences for the top two were not adaquately recorded. But with RCA you'd basically be doing this without needing to actually host additional voting rounds - you just collect enough info in one round and then compare votes and preferences until you have your candidate.
I'm not sure that even Lemmy has a monopoly on the fediverse anyways. But outside of the fediverse, breaking up the tech monopolies and enforcing net neutrality are steps in the right direction.
For the fediverse specifically, I'm not sure. One thing that might help is to make user accounts and magazines (communities) more portable. So if one signs up on the wrong instance, it's easier to move to a friendlier instance. Currently, some folks seem to set up their own instance specifically for a community that they have planned explicitly to avoid this problem (but that makes it even harder to get a new owner if the mod-admin abandons the instance).
Of course, the technical bar to setting up and running your own instance is a bit higher than just signing up to, for example, fedia.io (And that's just if you want to run vanilla - you generally have to be an actual software dev if you want to customize the software that your instance runs.)
But coding software, and moderating a community, or an entire instance, are all different things and I suspect that there's not much overlap with the first one and the other two. So I don't have any good solutions either, just suggesting that if the fediverse required everyone to set up their own instance to join, we'd likely be in a pre-Eternal September phase.
No, I agree. My conclusion puts me on the less popular opinion on this one matter, and that's obvious to me. However, I was replying to a thread asking for someone to be banned, and - just as we don't automatically convict folks in court on the basis of popular opinion, I feel that it would be nice if stronger standards also applied before someone got a ban.
(Not saying the full criminal defendant protections should apply mind, as this is just a ban on one magazine or one instance in the fediverse, so it's not like we need to apply the full protections against depriving someone of their freedom as they are locked in jail, here.)
That said, if my reading of the numbers is wrong, I am open to having that explained - that is I'm open to admitting I'm wrong. (If one checks my history, they'll find that I've done so multiple times.)
11.6% of a person’s day is a lot,
I didn't mean to say otherwise. What I wrote was
Hadn't realized it was so little.
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..
Not cherry-picking, I said I came to the same conclusion independently of the mod.
But in a way, you could consider me a test. If you can change my mind with your arguments and statistics, then perhaps jordanlund would also be convinced by the same post replies.
(I'm not guaranteeing it, in fact considering that I'm not a mod here, I'm probably a lower bar to convince than jordanlund or the other mods.)
Ah, sorry, I see now that it was not you but gsfraley who was accusing of a shared or bot account (when even you have provided evidence to the contrary on that point).
Speaking of being contrary - well, just how far backwards can I be bending if I have independently come to the same conclusion as the mods here?
So I'm not sure where I fit in. I run my own instance, but it's a single user instance that only serves me. Also, I currently don't run any magazines (communities) of my own.
If I was the user on Instance A asking on Instance B ... well that means Instance A is my own, and I obviously wouldn't get in trouble with myself.
If I was the admin on Instance B - a user from elsewhere was asking me to remove such content on mine - I'd go ahead and do it. Not worth the potential headache or ramifications that would come with refusing.
I think in general, the admin on Instance A would not be upset with the user. If anything, in this situation the user is probably trying to delete their account and history, so the admins of Instance A would be thankful that the user went to instance B and saved the admins the headache of trying to contact other federated instances themselves to coordinate a manual deletion. (The only thing worse than dealing with a GDPR request is trying to get others to help you deal with a GDPR request - particularly without pay.)