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

Tell HN: You can get ghostbanned for mentioning certain “unpersons.”

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Tell HN: You can get ghostbanned for mentioning certain “unpersons.”

#41

Post by dang »

0x7ce wrote: post #14

I got ghostbanned here on another account the day I submitted a link to the story about how Bobby Fisher (the World Chess Champion) got tortured in an American jail. When I confronted dang over it he claimed against all logic that the timing was merely coincidental and I was being retroactively punished for other, different instances of wrongthink posts that I posted several weeks prior to the ban. This is how they o…

Not one of the complaints in this thread, including the OP, come with any links. Why not let readers see for themselves and make up their own minds?

Re: Tell HN: You can get ghostbanned for mentioning certain “unpersons.”

#42

Post by Tozen »

dang wrote: post #41
0x7ce wrote: post #14

I got ghostbanned here on another account the day I submitted a link to the story about how Bobby Fisher (the World Chess Champion) got tortured in an American jail. When I confronted dang over it he claimed against all logic that the timing was merely coincidental and I was being retroactively punished for other, different instances of wrongthink posts that I posted several weeks prior to the ban. This is how they o…

Not one of the complaints in this thread, including the OP, come with any links. Why not let readers see for themselves and make up their own minds?

I can't say about the others or all cases, as don't have the bird's eye view or ever have been a moderator, but do know that significant sections of threads can be removed (censored?). Recently I had made a comment in the "The bottom emoji breaks rust-analyzer" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34775549), that comment and others just vanished. My comment wasn't flagged. Just an entire section of comments (before and after) seem to have been removed. In those cases of heavy editing, for whatever reasons, there is nothing to link to for readers to see.

Additionally, when a thread is shadowbanned/ghostbanned, there is nothing for other readers to see as well. Only the creator, yourself, or possibly moderators can see. The public will not be able to see, so links to it serve no purpose. I'm just saying what I have personally observed, so don't know all the history or the behind the scenes. If something doesn't publicly exist anymore or is not accessible, there is nothing there for other readers to make up their minds about.

Re: Tell HN: You can get ghostbanned for mentioning certain “unpersons.”

#43

Post by dang »

Tozen wrote: post #42
dang wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not one of the complaints in this thread, including the OP, come with any links. Why not let readers see for themselves and make up their own minds?

I can't say about the others or all cases, as don't have the bird's eye view or ever have been a moderator, but do know that significant sections of threads can be removed (censored?). Recently I had made a comment in the "The bottom emoji breaks rust-analyzer" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34775549 ), that comment and others just vanished. My comment wasn't flagged. Just an entire section of comments (befor…

If you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34788024, your comment was a reply to a comment that got flagged. Flagged subthreads are collapsed by default. They're still there, just in collapsed form.

I don't know what you mean by shadowbanned/ghostbanned but everything remains visible to users who have 'showdead' turned on in their profile. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.

> there is nothing there for other readers to make up their minds about.

On the contrary - if people mention specific links, we can say exactly what happened to that link and this would allow readers to make up their own minds. Most "I got banned/censored" claims never supply the link because then they get to tell a one-sided, and usually entirely distorted, story.

Re: Tell HN: You can get ghostbanned for mentioning certain “unpersons.”

#44

Post by Tozen »

dang wrote: post #43
Tozen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't say about the others or all cases, as don't have the bird's eye view or ever have been a moderator, but do know that significant sections of threads can be removed (censored?). Recently I had made a comment in the "The bottom emoji breaks rust-analyzer" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34775549 ), that comment and others just vanished. My comment wasn't flagged. Just an entire section of comments (befor…

If you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34788024 , your comment was a reply to a comment that got flagged. Flagged subthreads are collapsed by default. They're still there, just in collapsed form. I don't know what you mean by shadowbanned/ghostbanned but everything remains visible to users who have 'showdead' turned on in their profile. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html . > there…

The rebuttal makes some good points. However, many are not going to see the contents of flagged comments nor understand the decisions behind them being so. Not to say that flagging isn't justified at times, but scores of posts that are removed with it, are not guilty of the same violation or the posters below the removed comment in violation may not even know what happened.

Agree that the OP should be able to provide a link to the shadowbanned thread (if they're not having trouble doing so), because of course you will be able to see it. The context of how shadowban or ghostban is used, is debatably valid. Because the user can see the thread, but it's no longer obviously available to the public.

As for showdead, seems doubtful that many would have it turned on or even be looking. Once a thread drops out of sight (likely top 100), seems most won't check (even more so if no comments) unless they are searching for something specific (which could be anything).

Possibly a good example of shadowban/ghostban thread, is this recently posted one (below). It also doesn't show as "dead" either, though maybe there is some time element, and can't be seen by the public.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34838236 (Robot war dogs commanded by soldiers using brain computer interface [video])

Re: Tell HN: You can get ghostbanned for mentioning certain “unpersons.”

#45

Post by dang »

Tozen wrote: post #44
dang wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34788024 , your comment was a reply to a comment that got flagged. Flagged subthreads are collapsed by default. They're still there, just in collapsed form. I don't know what you mean by shadowbanned/ghostbanned but everything remains visible to users who have 'showdead' turned on in their profile. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html . > there…

The rebuttal makes some good points. However, many are not going to see the contents of flagged comments nor understand the decisions behind them being so. Not to say that flagging isn't justified at times, but scores of posts that are removed with it, are not guilty of the same violation or the posters below the removed comment in violation may not even know what happened. Agree that the OP should be able to provide…

I agree with most of your points here. The thing to understand is that these are all tradeoffs. For example, it's true that collapsing flagged subthreads by default is unfair to the users who post substantive comments in that subtree and haven't broken the site guidelines. (Sometimes we rectify this by manually snipping them, so they can go back to the top level, if we see them and they make just as much sense at the top level.) However, it's still a major improvement to thread quality overall to collapse flagged subthreads by default. Moderation is fraught with these tradeoffs, and when we find any major improvement to overall quality, we pretty much have to do it. In this sense we're basically all victims of statistics here.

Re https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34838236: that got hit by a simple spam filter. Clearly it was a false positive (another tradeoff—no spam filters without false positives). Sorry! I've restored it now*. The funny thing is, I was just looking at that particular filter this afternoon and realized it might need some work—I just haven't had time to review it yet, which involves looking at everything it has killed recently and evaluating whether it's still doing more good than harm.

* ("Robot war dogs" is linkbait though, so I've taken that bit out of the title, as the site guidelines ask - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Re: Tell HN: You can get ghostbanned for mentioning certain “unpersons.”

#46

Post by Tozen »

dang wrote: post #45
Tozen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rebuttal makes some good points. However, many are not going to see the contents of flagged comments nor understand the decisions behind them being so. Not to say that flagging isn't justified at times, but scores of posts that are removed with it, are not guilty of the same violation or the posters below the removed comment in violation may not even know what happened. Agree that the OP should be able to provide…

I agree with most of your points here. The thing to understand is that these are all tradeoffs. For example, it's true that collapsing flagged subthreads by default is unfair to the users who post substantive comments in that subtree and haven't broken the site guidelines. (Sometimes we rectify this by manually snipping them, so they can go back to the top level, if we see them and they make just as much sense at the…

The very positive thing is that you fearlessly addressed each point and provided more clarity. This is a positive reflection, because of your willingness to take the time to do such. Users usually don't know the other side, from the administrative point of view, so sometimes this can resolve misunderstandings.

Re: Tell HN: You can get ghostbanned for mentioning certain “unpersons.”

#47

Post by dang »

Tozen wrote: post #46
dang wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most of your points here. The thing to understand is that these are all tradeoffs. For example, it's true that collapsing flagged subthreads by default is unfair to the users who post substantive comments in that subtree and haven't broken the site guidelines. (Sometimes we rectify this by manually snipping them, so they can go back to the top level, if we see them and they make just as much sense at the…

The very positive thing is that you fearlessly addressed each point and provided more clarity. This is a positive reflection, because of your willingness to take the time to do such. Users usually don't know the other side, from the administrative point of view, so sometimes this can resolve misunderstandings.

I'm glad! Thanks for saying so.

It's true, a lot of this stuff doesn't explain itself and HN can be particularly cryptic. We try to make up for that by answering questions whenever people have them.

Re: Tell HN: You can get ghostbanned for mentioning certain “unpersons.”

#48

Post by 0x7ce »

dang wrote: post #41
0x7ce wrote: post #14

I got ghostbanned here on another account the day I submitted a link to the story about how Bobby Fisher (the World Chess Champion) got tortured in an American jail. When I confronted dang over it he claimed against all logic that the timing was merely coincidental and I was being retroactively punished for other, different instances of wrongthink posts that I posted several weeks prior to the ban. This is how they o…

Not one of the complaints in this thread, including the OP, come with any links. Why not let readers see for themselves and make up their own minds?

Here’s the evidence for you. Fact: You ghostbanned my account “unknownaccount” after posting the Fischer article - allegedly for making “unsubstantiated” submissions despite not posting any submissions for a week prior. You admitted in your own comments that I was indeed linkbanned and it was just a coincidence about the Fischer link and that I was actually retroactively banned for posting unspecified “unsubstantiated content” Like what does that even mean? All my submissions were legitimate, thought provoking logical and relevant including some well-received whistleblow criticisms against Megacorps and including the likes of Microsoft and Cloudflare-which hundreds of users upvoted mind you. It’s understandable that a myriad of corporate elements wanted me silenced, but I think you fell into their play too much. You should really give the community the FREEDOM to see what it wants, stop taking down or editing posts which PEOPLE want to see. Not just what (your handlers, their handlers, other moderators, downvote&reporting botfarm ops, gov & political agencies etc) permit the sheeple to see. Please for the sake of this community tone the oppressive censorship down a little, Get rid of your dystopian mechanisms of [deleting] wrongthink, of shadowbanning and ghostbanning. Give less credence to false flag and bad faith reports which lead to silencing as what happened to my account. The right thing to do would be to reverse the ban as there was and is infact substance to all of my claims, which many reasonable people were able to see hence why over many people agreed with my posts yet so many of them got taken down anyways. Funny how that works.

Re: Tell HN: You can get ghostbanned for mentioning certain “unpersons.”

#49

Post by 0x7ce »

dang wrote: post #47
Tozen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very positive thing is that you fearlessly addressed each point and provided more clarity. This is a positive reflection, because of your willingness to take the time to do such. Users usually don't know the other side, from the administrative point of view, so sometimes this can resolve misunderstandings.

I'm glad! Thanks for saying so. It's true, a lot of this stuff doesn't explain itself and HN can be particularly cryptic. We try to make up for that by answering questions whenever people have them.

The evidence where you pretty much admitted that you ghostbanned my main after mass reports (which could have 99% been in bad faith and/or bots) flagged me and then you judged Me to be guilty of wrongthought and taken my away link posting ability has been posted above.

Re: Tell HN: You can get ghostbanned for mentioning certain “unpersons.”

#50

Post by dang »

0x7ce wrote: post #49
dang wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad! Thanks for saying so. It's true, a lot of this stuff doesn't explain itself and HN can be particularly cryptic. We try to make up for that by answering questions whenever people have them.

The evidence where you pretty much admitted that you ghostbanned my main after mass reports (which could have 99% been in bad faith and/or bots) flagged me and then you judged Me to be guilty of wrongthought and taken my away link posting ability has been posted above.

You're going to have to be more specific if you want a response. I really don't know what you're talking about. We're dealing with far too many users and posts to remember anything for very long.

I don't mind answering questions (if you have one?) but I need links. Also, links let any interested reader check what happened for themselves and make up their own mind. That's important, since the community is the jury here.

Edit: ah ok, you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34853852. I've answered there.

Post reply on HN