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

FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 488 posts

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#361

Post by huibf »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #319
nullc wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN reports that they no longer shadowban. Reddit absolutely does shadowban still, and rather capriciously and randomly.

Does that mean: A - They have unShadowbanned all previously Shadowbanned users? OR B - They are no longer actively shadowbanning users, but previous victims of Shadowbanning are going to stay that way? Am asking since there is a big difference between the two.

Both are false. They still actively shadowban users and already banned users have stayed banned.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#362

Post by globular-toast »

onethought wrote: post #343
saagarjha wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Hacker News does this too (disclaimer: I have never experienced this firsthand, and the people I hear it from are obviously not impartial sources).

I’ve experienced this. If you are downvoted in quick succession you will get a “you are posting too quickly” error if you try to reply to anything… even if you didn’t post anything except the original post. Seems to last about a day.

That's rate limiting. This is enabled on accounts if you ever post something "controversial". Shadow banning, where the site lets you think you are posting successfully, has definitely been used in the past on this site and probably still is.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#363

Post by bagels »

rnd0 wrote: post #181
kbenson wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shadow banning and shadow moderation may make one's job easier but it has a disastrous effect on the forum or community by injecting a definite level of deceit into the moderator/poster relationship. You say that as if it's fact, but I'm not sure it is. HN has a method of shadow banning that is reversible if you are noticed as posting stuff that contributes and follows the guidelines, and even when you are shadow b…

>You say that as if it's fact, but I'm not sure it is. How is it not? Shadowbans by definition are deceptive; their whole intent is to deceive the poster into thinking that their message was sent and is readable. If you post and your message appears to appear on the thread but only you can read it then...you are being deceived. The message board software is lying to you. Since it is the moderators who decide that the…

Some users are simply not valuable participants. The kind that get shadowbanned can include those spamming Viagra, scams, and other nonsense.

I think that not getting rid of that content/malicious participants (not community members) undermines faith in moderation.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#364

Post by bagels »

jjav wrote: post #293
seattle_spring wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN would be a useless trove of violence and hate if all [dead] comments were automatically unhid. Folks who are into 8chan might be into a community like that, but I personally much prefer the moderated approach taken today.

> HN would be a useless trove of violence and hate if all [dead] comments were automatically unhid. I read with showdead=yes and it is nowhere near that description. In fact dead posts are not even that common on most articles. And most of the dead posts, while on average low quality, are very rarely hateful or anything like that.

There used to be one dead user that would post... wild racist stuff due to mental illness. But lately yes, I agree with this characterization.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#365

Post by ionwake »

stouset wrote: post #102
ionwake wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn’t make a point in your reply.

You may have missed it in your rush to downvote me.

I did not downvote you at all, I replied because I wanted to discuss it with you. Others have replied, and I think its really interesting you think an unruly playground needs to be moderated. Others have pointed out you just "go to your corner" or dont engage so to speak. But you seem to think it needs to be moderated. I am not saying you are wrong I 'm curious as to why.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#366

Post by hanspeter »

seaourfreed wrote: post #178
scottydelta wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just defined shadow banning.

It is censorship. Calling it shadow banning doesn't make it okay. Bigger and bigger groups of citizens are revolting over censorship: Bill Maher and tons of Americans. This builds a revolt against Facebook

It's not censorship. Guarantee of reach on a post has not existed on FB for 10+ years if ever.

If it did, FB would be a spammers heaven.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#367

Post by globular-toast »

blunte wrote: post #18

It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.

It's a normal part of censorship. During wars some countries have employed sensors to intercept letters from soldiers. The soldiers will never know what was censored en route or indeed if the letter made it at all.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#368

Post by strken »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #303
mistermann wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm misreading your message, but you seem to be writing as if your counterpart in the discussion believes these things, despite saying nothing of the kind. Am I misreading you?

No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those. If you say a private company can’t moderate private messages it hosts, you’re saying it must allow private exchange of child porn. And harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving. And basically any harmful behavior you can imagine. If Facebook wants to provide private…

I wasn't saying any of those things. I was responding to the outrageous claim that this wasn't censorship.

Facebook is also allowed to censor child porn in private messages, and that they do so is a good thing, yet it's still censorship.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#369

Post by southerntofu »

hanspeter wrote: post #366
seaourfreed wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is censorship. Calling it shadow banning doesn't make it okay. Bigger and bigger groups of citizens are revolting over censorship: Bill Maher and tons of Americans. This builds a revolt against Facebook

It's not censorship. Guarantee of reach on a post has not existed on FB for 10+ years if ever. If it did, FB would be a spammers heaven.

Facebook is still a spammers heaven. Of course, the spam you find on there is a little more sophisticated than "you have won the lottery" emails.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#370

Post by buro9 »

iamacyborg wrote: post #334
bagels wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right or not, I think charitably, the person you are responding to is pointing out that this is not a new thing in social media sites. It's a decades old technique at this point.

I recall vBulletin 3 software having a mode to specifically make the website slow and frustrating for certain users. https://www.managingcommunities.com/2009/09/14/troll-hack-gl...

"miserable" mode. It was a mod introduced in vbulletin 2 by community members.

When installed it extended the idea of banning or shadow banning as it degraded the user experience for the person in question. Basically giving the impression that the site was malfunctioning to the point that it was frustrating for the user and they left the site for a while. This included random delays to the page loading, and sending them to a different page and ignoring their intent.

https://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=93258

Post reply on HN