441–447 of 447 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which other word do you think would be suitable here? In my view, 'shadowban' aligns with the definition in this context, as you aren't notifying people about it (hence 'shadow') and their actions of upvoting or downvoting have no impact (so same as shadowbanning comments or submissions etc).
I would call it either a penalty or a loss of voting privileges, depending on the specific case. It's not a ban because the account is not excluded from participating in other ways. In the same way, downweighted or penalized sites aren't the same as banned sites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning
> Shadow banning, also called stealth banning, hellbanning, ghost banning, and comment ghosting, is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user's content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user, regardless of whether the action is taken by an individual or an algorithm. For example, shadow-banned comments posted to a blog or media website would be visible to the sender, but not to other users accessing the site.
This part matches shadow banning voting and is basically the same what I wrote in my previous comment just using different words:
> partially blocking a user or the user's content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user
And this part, which contradicts what you wrote in your last comment:
> More recently, the term has come to apply to alternative measures, particularly visibility measures like delisting and downranking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yes, many sites are banned on HN. Others are penalized (see e.g. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... ). None of this is secret, though we don't publish the lists themselves. Edit: about 67k sites are banned on HN. Here's a random selection of 10 of them: vodlockertv.com biggboss.org infoocode.com newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com moringajuice.wordpress.com surrogacymumbai.com max…
pg posted an early version of the list back in March 2009 when it include only 2096 sites: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=498910 > That grew fairly rapidly, it was at 38,719 by 30 Dec 2012: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4984095 > (a random 50 are listed). I suspect that overwhelmingly the list continues to reflect the characteristics of its early incarnations.
current 'unique porn domains' = 53,644
current adware, malware, tracking, etc. = 210,425 unique domainsEarlier quoted context omitted.
Got a message saying Twitter is blocking all access without login. You were right ajb. I was not getting this yesterday though. This also happened back in June but it was only temporary.
Great - at least it's not me personally being blocked somehow. I hope they do unblock it, but it does show that nitter is still at the mercy of Twitter.
Try https://nitter.cz/holly/rss
No t.co URLs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't blocking Stacker.news a petty move? It's basically HN, but you can earn small tips for submissions and comments.
It could be because they saw they were getting low quality links from there. In any case, since HN prefers original sources, it’s less likely that a news aggregator would be a good source (the occasional Reddit comment notwithstanding)
What I mean to say is: I do see the logic of downgrading links to SN, because it is not usually an original source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other than the privacy angle a meta redirect is always a bit slower than a location header. You need to send an html page (more bytes) that the browser needs to render and then act on (more work). A location header is nearly unnoticeable, a meta refresh page gives you a flash of a blank interstitial screen. (Not that I had the same annoyance, just explaining the difference to the end user of the two approaches)
With the amount of bloat we have on the modern web, I think sending an HTML meta tag rather than a Location header should be the least of our concerns, when it comes to performance. If the whole purpose of it is to have browsers send a Referer header, I don't think it's that bad. Even from a privacy perspective, you can configure browsers to not send that header anyway.