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

I think that ghostbanning is unethical

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: I think that ghostbanning is unethical

#11

Post by mah4k4l »

speedgoose wrote: post #7

It’s extremely effective and reduce the moderators workload a lot, because creating a new account and farming karma again is easy. However many spammers and unwanted commenters never notice that they are ghost banned. I agree that it’s not nice to them, which is acceptable most of the time for most people because the ghost banned members are not really nice community members. It is an issue when someone is ghost bann…

Ok I'll agree upon it being a shades of grey - kind of thing. But why not just outright ban someone when it's clear he doesn't fall into those categories of a spammer, a scammer or a troll. Would be much more polite and straightforward in a kind situation where you just seem to have the "wrong opinions" that don't fit the forum or whatever.

Re: I think that ghostbanning is unethical

#12

Post by janandonly »

janandonly wrote: post #10

> We're all big boys and girls. We (as a species) overall do not behave like adults, really. Not on the internet anyway's, or at least not all the time. But here is the thing: @dang is trying to keep peace and order. He is not trying to be evil or nice. He is "managing" us. Literally. And this path of the least resistance seems to be working fine-ish. Personally, I hate having a great article be "flagged" or immediat…

In a similar vain, I've noticed that the highest chance of making it into the top 20 posts here on HN depends greatly on the hour of the day.

Posting around UTC15:00+1 seems to get the best results.

Re: I think that ghostbanning is unethical

#13

Post by yetihehe »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #8
Normille wrote: post #3

I can see the thinking behind it. Why let a spammer know no-one is seeing their junk? They'll just keep creating new accounts. But having been on the end of it myself with other accounts here -just for disagreeing with people who were obviously more 'in with the in crowd' than me- and without even receiving any warning first, I think the way it is sometimes implemented is pretty childish.

While shadow banning has some benefits, at its heart it is a form of gas-lighting (claiming that everyone can see your message, while it's actually just you), with good intentions in the case of HN. I don't know that it shouldn't be used just because of philosophical objections, but it certainly messes with the idea that a system is meant to either obey or refuse the command given by the user, and do so honestly. Lyi…

> but it certainly messes with the idea that a system is meant to either obey or refuse the command given by the user, and do so honestly.

If some users don't want to act honestly, rest of society should not honour their malice. Honouring malice leads to dissolution of society.

Re: I think that ghostbanning is unethical

#14

Post by mah4k4l »

janandonly wrote: post #10

> We're all big boys and girls. We (as a species) overall do not behave like adults, really. Not on the internet anyway's, or at least not all the time. But here is the thing: @dang is trying to keep peace and order. He is not trying to be evil or nice. He is "managing" us. Literally. And this path of the least resistance seems to be working fine-ish. Personally, I hate having a great article be "flagged" or immediat…

> We (as a species) overall do not behave like adults, really.

Ok fair enough. Still there's some sort of a social expectation to that effect. And when you don't behave then you'll get the social sanction given by the community. I can dig that this is the internet and that it's hard work to keep up the standard. You seem to see the two sides to this stuff as well.

Re: I think that ghostbanning is unethical

#15

Post by s9w »

smt88 wrote: post #9

Shadowbanning has two obvious benefits for the site: 1) Increases the time it takes trolls to realize they need to create a new account. 2) Pacifies angry, malicious users who might escalate their bad behavior when instantly banned. I haven't seen HN use shadowbanning to censor anyone. The people who are shadowbanned all seem to post unhinged, profane, off-topic, content-free rants. Personally, I think it makes the c…

No post body was provided.

Re: I think that ghostbanning is unethical

#16

Post by mah4k4l »

smt88 wrote: post #9

Shadowbanning has two obvious benefits for the site: 1) Increases the time it takes trolls to realize they need to create a new account. 2) Pacifies angry, malicious users who might escalate their bad behavior when instantly banned. I haven't seen HN use shadowbanning to censor anyone. The people who are shadowbanned all seem to post unhinged, profane, off-topic, content-free rants. Personally, I think it makes the c…

> I haven't seen HN use shadowbanning to censor anyone.

Maybe it was the ones you didn't see? Bacause they were shadowbanned?

My post was about ethics, trying to be formal and simple about the question what is it to do the right thing. Basically it was about this: sometimes good is right, sometimes evil is right, so good can be wrong and evil can be right, and we have four things of which the main question is the question of right and wrong.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a "toxic personality" but being ghostbanned did piss me off a little. More than pacify me. I am pointing out a real ethical issue, not "escalating my bad behavior" by posting this comment is how I see it.

[Edit:]I love HN, it's one of the best sites I know. I'm just pointing out an aspect of it that I don't like. I might use different language now that I'm not as pissed anymore, but I would post it.

Re: I think that ghostbanning is unethical

#20

Post by true_religion »

mah4k4l wrote: post #16
smt88 wrote: post #9

Shadowbanning has two obvious benefits for the site: 1) Increases the time it takes trolls to realize they need to create a new account. 2) Pacifies angry, malicious users who might escalate their bad behavior when instantly banned. I haven't seen HN use shadowbanning to censor anyone. The people who are shadowbanned all seem to post unhinged, profane, off-topic, content-free rants. Personally, I think it makes the c…

> I haven't seen HN use shadowbanning to censor anyone. Maybe it was the ones you didn't see? Bacause they were shadowbanned? My post was about ethics, trying to be formal and simple about the question what is it to do the right thing. Basically it was about this: sometimes good is right, sometimes evil is right, so good can be wrong and evil can be right, and we have four things of which the main question is the que…

Shadow banned people on HN just have their comments automatically killed. If you have showdead on, you still see their comments.
Post reply on HN