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…
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…