Actually, your script goes a long way to convincing me the account is not a bot or shared account but a regular person.
~111 mins / day
So the guy gets a full 8 hours of sleep, does a full 8 hours of work at a job and has a reasonable commute, spends less than 2 hours on the fediverse, and still has quite a few hours of personal time for other things like catching the latest movie?
(Alternatively, guy works at home, checks in on the fediverse frequently on his work computer while also doing his regular job, and maybe stays logged on for 10 hours a day instead of the required 8 to make up for the difference.)
It’s certainly possible that this is a guy who is a GOP and MAGA supporter, and is being less than fully honest about his motives in promoting third parties.
But it’s also possible that what’s written on the tin is in fact accurate - he’s a person who dislikes the duopoly in the US and wants to vote 3rd party no matter what, and wanting to share his thoughts on the election in an unfiltered way.
Which one is the truth? I’ll let you, the voter, decide.
But, that aside, I think this comment from our mod explains it best,
The consensus is, yes, they have shitty opinions, but having shitty opinions is not against the TOS.
The comments and downvotes do their job exposing just how shitty their opinions are.
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?
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.)
You’re clearly picking the less popular opinion. This is either obvious to you or it isn’t. The numbers are there, and you chose your reading of them. I cannot do anything about that.
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.)
If the script I wrote to expose this troll/sealion doesn’t change any minds, literally nothing will.
Actually, your script goes a long way to convincing me the account is not a bot or shared account but a regular person.
So the guy gets a full 8 hours of sleep, does a full 8 hours of work at a job and has a reasonable commute, spends less than 2 hours on the fediverse, and still has quite a few hours of personal time for other things like catching the latest movie?
(Alternatively, guy works at home, checks in on the fediverse frequently on his work computer while also doing his regular job, and maybe stays logged on for 10 hours a day instead of the required 8 to make up for the difference.)
It’s certainly possible that this is a guy who is a GOP and MAGA supporter, and is being less than fully honest about his motives in promoting third parties.
But it’s also possible that what’s written on the tin is in fact accurate - he’s a person who dislikes the duopoly in the US and wants to vote 3rd party no matter what, and wanting to share his thoughts on the election in an unfiltered way.
Which one is the truth? I’ll let you, the voter, decide.
But, that aside, I think this comment from our mod explains it best,
https://lemmy.world/comment/12661845
You’re bending far over backwards to be contrary. Just so you know, it’s not of concern to me.
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?
Yes, the mark of being non-contrary – cherry picking the opinion you already agree with as evidence
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.)
You’re clearly picking the less popular opinion. This is either obvious to you or it isn’t. The numbers are there, and you chose your reading of them. I cannot do anything about that.
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.)