431–440 of 488 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both are false. They still actively shadowban users and already banned users have stayed banned.
I'm interested in hearing reports, please email me if you can show me specific examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Kooky nutjobs" do exist, but part of the problem with censorship is that undesireable people can be put into this can all too easily to be silenced, even though their agenda is not really that kooky. Pro-gay or pro-weed activists, heck even pro-civil rights activists used to be kooky nutjobs of their time. We haven't arrived at the end of our moral or legislative evolution. We need to hear some voices that are consi…
This isn’t the same thing, and I think you know that.
This isn't a new discussion, and I think you know that. Bureaucracy tasked with suppression of speech and beholden to career politicians hasn't historically shown itself to be subtle and erring on the side of freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You reaaaaallly would not like the uncensored internet. Respectfully disagree. Watching things get disappeared on Reddit sent me in to an anxiety spiral. I'll take goatse links over that shit any day of the week.
Goatse links would be the least of your problems. I’m imagining my Gmail account without the spam filter. Everything showing up in my inbox, not just the stuff in my spam folder, but also all the stuff they silently drop that I don’t even see. Email would be unusable.
Imagination often does not match reality. I have a (non-Gmail) account that is littered over the web, in git repositories and in multiple leaks. I don't silently drop any emails - the only server-side anti-spam measure I have a regexp to reject the usual spam subjects at submission time, which for normal senders will result in a notification to the user. The amount of spam is hardly at a level that would be anywhere close to making Email unusable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it difficult to run a forum without the users learning your real identity? That seems like the way to go, but I have no experience with that sort of thing.
It would be possible, though if you participated a lot, you'd leave a lot of writing to be analysed. That would at least deter the casuals. In my case, I post using my first name and most regulars would know who I am. It's a sports forum and people have recognised me at games, etc. I've had people look up my phone number and call me aggressively about things. I've had countless legal letters and threats. Someone doxx…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other nonsense? As in viewpoints that are disagreeable to the moderators in charge? There’s a clear difference between male enhancement spam and a guy with a poorly thought out comment that most people find disagreeable. A middle schooler can spot the difference. Back in my day we welcomed those poorly reasoned or flat out wrong comments: you would attack them with logic and use them as opportunities to find the trut…
No, just the kind of stuff that our customers didn't want, or that were illegal. Pirated movies, scams that purported to offer pirated movies, people trying to steal passwords, people trying to hack our users. I think your accusations are aimed at the wrong person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's deceit, but in a similar category of deceit to telling a user the resource is 404 not found instead of 403 or 401 because you don't even trust them enough Is it the same? Showing a 404 is a security measure that applies equally to anyone lacking sufficient privileges. Ideally an app should prevent you from getting these, or show a message like "Not found, or no access". > It's deceit with the purpose of stymii…
Normally you don't get any of that process because you don't have any right to use someone else's service. They can ban you for having red hair or blue eyes if they please and they would be foolish but not in the wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but scale that lack of rights to platforms will millions or billions of users, and you get effective dictatorship. Platforms just wielding too much power that extends well beyond their walled garden, impacting society as a whole. The question is often raised if e.g. FB should be considered a utility service, and have their policies tightly regulated. Edit: I submitted a separate Ask HN on "shadow suppression":…
It's an odd dictatorship that someone voluntarily submits to. Being out of Facebook's decisions on what you may say is as simple as closing your account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people aren’t aware that shadowbanning occurs, how it is used, and to what extent. By very definition they don’t see shadowbanned comments or content. I’m not sure how you can think people approve of something they aren’t even aware is happening. It’s not just deceptive to the shadowbanned user, it’s deceptive to the whole community, too. How can an average user trust that the content they’re viewing isn’t entir…
> I’m not sure how you can think people approve of something they aren’t even aware is happening. Because people often trust people based on reputation, results, or other proxy measures rather than reviewing every action they take. > It’s not just deceptive to the shadowbanned user, it’s deceptive to the whole community, too. It is. At the same time I think most people don't care, and are fine not having every modera…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can debate about its limits but somebody with a hardline position smacks of somebody who has never dealed with the real world issues but is cocksure about how things should be done. The canard about what happens when you assume applies in this case. Very much so. I've moderated forums and I've never had a problem with simply deleting spam out-right when it came up. Same with problematic users and posts.
It's one thing to moderate something in the hundreds to thousands of users, and something entirely different in the tens of millions. When you start having multiple groups of attackers and whole underground markets aimed at taking advantage of your users, simply banning individuals / deleting individual posts no longer cuts it.
So many people in this thread are talking about death threats from being a moderator. If being a moderator is such a dangerous job then why do people do it? One has to wonder, they’re either getting paid very well, or they like the power. I’m guessing it’s the latter in almost all cases.