Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An account was suspended

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 398 posts

Re: An account was suspended

#331

Post by dang »

esotericimpl wrote: post #103

It's odd seeing this on hacker news. When people on hacker news are literally shadow banned, have their comments hidden with zero feedback or notice. In fact i guarantee this comment cant be seen either.

You're banned, but not shadowbanned. We told you we were banning you and why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24797166

On HN, shadowbanning (i.e. banning accounts without telling them) is nearly always for accounts that don't have much posting history—either spam accounts or ones that show signs of having abused HN in the past, such as serial trolls. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32040389 has links back to a bunch of longer explanations, if anyone wants more.

p.s. After a quick look, I'd say HN's system is working reasonably well in your case because most of your good comments are getting vouched for by users, which unkills them, and most of your bad (for HN) comments are rightfully staying killed. There are cases of banned accounts that shouldn't stay banned, but this isn't one of them.

Re: An account was suspended

#332

Post by Dylan16807 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #229
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's your definition of spam? Are lots of links inherently spam?

Is an email announcing your Nigerian lottery winnings inherently spam? No. But that doesn’t stop us from making spam filters.

And if a human reviews it they can see it's real.

Re: An account was suspended

#333

Post by dzhiurgis »

Multicomp wrote: post #300
shadowgovt wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what reasonable looks like when a system has 237 million daily active users and the reinstatement system itself would be intentionally gamed by adversaries. Do we have any examples to draw from operating at that scale? Due to the Musk purchase, we have a rare public disclosure of a major tech giant's internal workings where Twitter claims ( https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/07/twitter-s...…

How about an escrow-style thing? "We charge $100 to have a human look at this case, if the suspension was incorrect we reinstate the account and your money. If not, we tell you what actions you can take that would un-violate our policies so you could be re-instated." Spammers doing selenium powered spam would never pay for that, but the real folks who are not tight with large audiences would have an option.

Kinda agree, but small nitpick - $100 in places where most selenium scraping is done is a ton of money. To compare would average joe in US put 1k towards escrow?

Re: An account was suspended

#334

Post by viridian »

breck wrote: post #33
_madmax_ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point in time I think I am comfortable saying the web is more detrimental to humans than Television ever was.

If you just stick to the sites that are public domain without ads, it's an amazing place. And of course the "purple app" that everyone is talking about ( https://www.farcaster.xyz/ ) is incredible.

Why not just use something running on the activity pub protocol? The fact that farcaster isnt even interoperable with various fediverse projects makes me doubt their intentions in this space.

Re: An account was suspended

#335

Post by MikePlacid »

cupofpython wrote: post #315
morby wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were extremists on the site making calls to violence. A *private* entity deciding they don’t want to do business with a company because of that is neither censorship as a society would consider it nor is it problematic. More people and businesses should be willing to refuse business to entities that seek to harass, abuse, or promote violence to another group of people. What you’re worried about is governmental…

On one hand I agree fully with this. On the other hand, if the government either is now or will eventually be owned by corporations then we might as well start setting a precedent of holding large corporations to the same standards as government.

>if the government either is now or will eventually be owned by corporations

Railroad period in California politics. About 187x or so.

The (only) transcontinental railroad is completed. The owners, Stanford (yes, that Stanford) and Co see the enormous economic power in their hands. They can set tariffs as they please. If a farm is owned by a relative or a loyal person - shipping oranges to Chicago is extremely profitable. A "bad" person gets a prohibiting tariff. So, only a loyal person can be elected at any post. Only a loyal person can own a (profitable) newspaper.

This continues for a couple dozen years, then there is a popular revolt and no railroad-connected person can ever be elected anywhere. And the first anti-monopoly laws are introduced. Suddenly a private business can't set private tariffs as it's pleased.

"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun."

-- Having said that, the post you agree with is flawed on much simpler basis. The constitution protects us from government censorship. Protection from private censorship (and yes, it's a censorship) is placed in our own private hands. So to say "nothing to worry about" is extremely counter-productive. Exactly because there is no other recourse except the private action of stopping dealing with a business that engages is censorship.

Re: An account was suspended

#336

Post by godshatter »

JadeNB wrote: post #207
mschuster91 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But only a tiny fraction of the 829 M tweets a day are abusive.

> But only a tiny fraction of the 829 M tweets a day are abusive. But you have to read all 829 M to find the abusive ones—and you have to agree on what 'abusive' means.

Let the users curate their own feeds rather than trying to curate things centrally. If some threshold of users have blocked one twitter user, then ban them maybe, otherwise leave it alone. They can remove obvious spam or whatever, but let me choose whether to ban that particular take on a subject or not from my feed.

I'm likely in the minority on this, but I'd rather have the control than trust others to moderate in my best interests for me.

Re: An account was suspended

#337

Post by p_j_w »

panarky wrote: post #279
rjzzleep wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be a lot of links, if you piss off the wrong people and they massreport you you're temporarily out. You can reach out to support, but I don't know that support actually ever responds to any requests. Apparently according to posts on reddit if you add your number to twitter and something happens you won't even be able to ever remove it. Similarly they have weird intransparent policies regarding what…

This episode demonstrates the foolishness of Twitter's prospective new owner. He promises to allow all speech that is legal under the first amendment to the US constitution, while simultaneously eliminating spam. That's an instant contradiction, of course, because spam is perfectly legal under the US constitution. And every attempt to eliminate spam and bots, whether human or automated, will necessarily sweep up many…

>He promises to allow all speech that is legal under the first amendment to the US constitution, while simultaneously eliminating spam.

He's used to making these sorts of promises.

Re: An account was suspended

#338

Post by MikePlacid »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #325
MikePlacid wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your logic is flawed on many levels, and I will be glad to parse the errors after I have my breakfast and nothing more important emerges. Just one point for now: > What you’re worried about is governmental action and is not equivalent here. My kids tried to point me in the same direction. I’ve just pointed them to the router and said: I am a private citizen paying for Internet connection in this house. In 24 hours th…

> I said: exactly my point. They're both not government action, but they're very different kinds. There's a huge difference between "I will not assist this entity" and "I will stop other people from assisting this entity". Along similar lines, I am deeply upset with the level of power that payment processors have/use around censorship. But I don't care too much what AWS does.

>There's a huge difference between "I will not assist this entity" and "I will stop other people from assisting this entity".

On one hand - exactly! This is why I hate that Amazon stops me from using Parler, instead of not using it itself.

On other hand - my kids faced much less obstacles than Parler:

1. They are adults, they could have purchased their own internet connection.

2. They are Russians, they know how to use VPN. Theoretically .

They are just busy people, they could have coped, but would have some extra unnecessary troubles to overcome. And just a possibility of these small extra troubles caused a lot of worrying. (Parler failed to cope, they were too reliant on Amazon services or something, so unprofessional).

Re: An account was suspended

#339

Post by hintymad »

michaelmcdonald wrote: post #2

Ben's account is already un-suspended, but only because he has a major presence and large audience (I would be shocked if people at Twitter didn't see this minutes into it happening or if Ben didn't have some direct line to various high up employees there). For the rest of us peasants: good luck getting help.

I was wondering why Twitter does not tell account owners what exactly violates their Twitter Rules. Isn't this exactly the same as the very censorship of those totalitarian countries: they tell you break some rules but they never tell you which rules, so you're forced to self censor, and they can interpret their rules however they like.

It is this kind of behavior that make me lose my trust with Twitter (or YouTube or FB, and etc).

Re: An account was suspended

#340

Post by p_j_w »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #308
celeritascelery wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another power imbalance that is so frustrating. The account was “permanently suspended”, which you think means permanently suspended. But that only applies to normies. All the words are meaningless if twitter says otherwise. It’s really like living under a medieval king who is a law unto himself.

Permanently suspended means not temporarily suspended (for a few weeks etc). Everyone gets the ability to appeal. Whether the twitter kerfuffle affected the appeal process is another matter though.

I think the word they really want to use there is "indefinitely." It doesn't imply the same thing that "permanently" does.
Post reply on HN