3 ms·

Shadow-banning / hell-banning happens on HN too, but you're right that it's not a very nice way of moderating. Obviously, it's worse if it also gets you in trou

Shadow-banning / hell-banning happens on HN too, but you're right that it's not a very nice way of moderating. Obviously, it's worse if it also gets you in trouble with the state. Manipulating people's view of the world is pretty dishonest in any case though. I'm sure China would love to hide posts that mention 'Fatty Kim the Third' [0]. If you control the discourse then you can control what people think. We've seen this in both the UK and US recently. Russia have an agency dedicated to false information with sockpuppet accounts on social media [1] and the US has done related activities [2]. I'm sure other countries and interest groups have similar institutions. If you have an official integrated tool to do this work then it becomes so much easier. Worrying times. [0]: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-northkorea-internet-idUSKBN13B19C http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-northkorea-internet-... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op...

tripzilch 10y ago
> Shadow-banning / hell-banning happens on HN too, but you're right that it's not a very nice way of moderating. It's literally the worst way of moderating (short of serving the banned user destructive/malicious code). HN is wrong when they do it, too. Fortunately we got some new mods a while back, they're very good, and nowhere near as trigger-happy with the hell-bans as before. And still, it's wrong, vindictive and dishonest, and if you're clever just as easily circumvented as regular bans, which would be the right option (otherwise I'd like to hear the argument why non-clever people should be punished more harshly).
- grzm 10y ago
  Should an online community or its hosts have a say in shaping their community? If not, why not? If so, how should that be done? Why is shadow/hell banning in particular bad? I haven't seen a lot of discussions with reasons: just that it's bad. If you know of some, feel free to provide a link rather than duplicate it here.
  - hueving 10y ago
    It doesn't punish people intentionally trolling because they know to just create a new account. It just punishes people with unpopular opinions who are honestly trying to participate in the community.
    - grzm 10y ago
      It = hell/shadowbanning? From what I've seen on HN, those that have been banned have been warned, and it's been for either incivility or posting mostly unsubstantive/inflammatory posts. Which seems reasonable to me. Have you seen something different? Or have a different take?
      - hueving 10y ago
        Yes, an account with thousands of karma can be permanently shadowbanned by triggering a mod. The problem is that the line between unpopular opinion and inflammatory can be completely subjective in many cases. This site implies that comments should be analyzed rationally, but comments from shadowbanned accounts do not get this treatment. It's the equivalent of claiming someone will be allowed to take place in a televised event but then secretly cutting all of their responses out of the broadcast. Shadow banning is anti-intellectual behavior because it's essentially a systematic ad hominem.
        grzm 10y ago
        Agreed that the line between unpopular and inflammatory can be a matter of perspective. Regarding shadowbanned accounts not getting the same treatment: are you saying they weren't warned beforehand? Or not treated fairly before the banning? How long should those who have contributed negatively (wrt community standards) tolerated? Those who keep showdead and have enough karma can and do vouch for substantive and civil comments from shadowbanned accounts. Btw, are there particular instances you have in mind that you can point to? I've been following sctb and dang for the past month or so to see how they interact with the site and don't recall seeing anything grievious about their banning decisions. I completely agree that there's some tension between an policing a community forum and perceptions of anti- intellectual behavior, which motivated the additional questions in my previous comment. Would you mind weighing in on those? (And I'm not saying shadowbanning is the only tool they can use. Perhaps only voting and flagging should be used? I'm not sure if that's enough.) Thanks! (Please pardon any lack of proper editing or phrasing. I'm on my phone and having issues with commenting.)

tripzilch 10y ago

> Shadow-banning / hell-banning happens on HN too, but you're right that it's not a very nice way of moderating. It's literally the worst way of moderating (short of serving the banned user destructive/malicious code). HN is wrong when they do it, too. Fortunately we got some new mods a while back, they're very good, and nowhere near as trigger-happy with the hell-bans as before. And still, it's wrong, vindictive and dishonest, and if you're clever just as easily circumvented as regular bans, which would be the right option (otherwise I'd like to hear the argument why non-clever people should be punished more harshly).

grzm 10y ago
Should an online community or its hosts have a say in shaping their community? If not, why not? If so, how should that be done? Why is shadow/hell banning in particular bad? I haven't seen a lot of discussions with reasons: just that it's bad. If you know of some, feel free to provide a link rather than duplicate it here.
- hueving 10y ago
  It doesn't punish people intentionally trolling because they know to just create a new account. It just punishes people with unpopular opinions who are honestly trying to participate in the community.
  - grzm 10y ago
    It = hell/shadowbanning? From what I've seen on HN, those that have been banned have been warned, and it's been for either incivility or posting mostly unsubstantive/inflammatory posts. Which seems reasonable to me. Have you seen something different? Or have a different take?
    - hueving 10y ago
      Yes, an account with thousands of karma can be permanently shadowbanned by triggering a mod. The problem is that the line between unpopular opinion and inflammatory can be completely subjective in many cases. This site implies that comments should be analyzed rationally, but comments from shadowbanned accounts do not get this treatment. It's the equivalent of claiming someone will be allowed to take place in a televised event but then secretly cutting all of their responses out of the broadcast. Shadow banning is anti-intellectual behavior because it's essentially a systematic ad hominem.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Agreed that the line between unpopular and inflammatory can be a matter of perspective. Regarding shadowbanned accounts not getting the same treatment: are you saying they weren't warned beforehand? Or not treated fairly before the banning? How long should those who have contributed negatively (wrt community standards) tolerated? Those who keep showdead and have enough karma can and do vouch for substantive and civil comments from shadowbanned accounts. Btw, are there particular instances you have in mind that you can point to? I've been following sctb and dang for the past month or so to see how they interact with the site and don't recall seeing anything grievious about their banning decisions. I completely agree that there's some tension between an policing a community forum and perceptions of anti- intellectual behavior, which motivated the additional questions in my previous comment. Would you mind weighing in on those? (And I'm not saying shadowbanning is the only tool they can use. Perhaps only voting and flagging should be used? I'm not sure if that's enough.) Thanks! (Please pardon any lack of proper editing or phrasing. I'm on my phone and having issues with commenting.)