3 ms·

I don't think that's a fair comparison; the one choosing to shadow ban another isn't simply choosing to ignore the target, they are choosing to disallow others

I don't think that's a fair comparison; the one choosing to shadow ban another isn't simply choosing to ignore the target, they are choosing to disallow others from hearing what the target has to say, and in a way that does not allow the target an opportunity to change and improve themselves.

Fnoord 8y ago
E2E silent ignore does not work in online conversations where multiple people participate ("online group communication") because it meddles with the context since others do not participate. Try it for yourself: join an active IRC channel and ignore the first few people who chat. You won't be able to understand the conversation anymore. Spam filters work on 1:1 communication, targeted specifically at you. Shadow bans work on 1:1 communication and group communication if they're centralised or server-side. Its more akin to (SMTP) tarpits [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarpit_(networking) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarpit_(networking)
- dleslie 8y ago
  I've been using the IRC method since the early 90s; it works fine. Sure, there's some appearance of discontinuity but that's a feature, and allows one to personally guage whether the choice to exclude was a good one, without having to be exposed to the comments of the one ignored. Shadowbans aren't akin to SMTP tarpits insofar as the target of force is less likely to be a bot. Behind the silence is a human being who is trying to engage others.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    I've been using IRC since the early 90s as well, and it doesn't work "fine" when you ignore active members of a community who get quoted and such. SMTP tarpits are like shadow bans because the perpetrator isn't informed about the ban/tarpit, and its meant to slow them down by wasting their time in their bubble that they are getting "work" done.
    - dleslie 8y ago
      If they're active members of the community that are regularly quoted then banning them is unlikely to be the best course of action; I prefer to publicly announce that I'm ignoring someone, and perhaps why, before I do. Banning active and valuable community members should, at least, be public and transparent, lest the community react negatively. SMTP tarpits are more likely to involve a perpetrator who is operating a bot, and less likely a perpetrator who is personally engaged in the conversation and community.
com2kid 8y ago
> they are choosing to disallow others from hearing what the target has to say HN allows you to turn on shadowbanned posts. In the several years I've been here, I've seen maybe 3 or 4 shadow banned posts that were of value. In those cases, other users replied to the shadow banned user and told them to message the mods about getting the shadow ban lifted. Heavy moderation of the tone of message works. In a similar vein, the neutral politics sub on reddit is successful because they ban people who are rude. I think that if we moderated tone more often, that a lot of the toxic communities wouldn't even form.

Fnoord 8y ago

E2E silent ignore does not work in online conversations where multiple people participate ("online group communication") because it meddles with the context since others do not participate. Try it for yourself: join an active IRC channel and ignore the first few people who chat. You won't be able to understand the conversation anymore. Spam filters work on 1:1 communication, targeted specifically at you. Shadow bans work on 1:1 communication and group communication if they're centralised or server-side. Its more akin to (SMTP) tarpits [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarpit_(networking) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarpit_(networking)

dleslie 8y ago
I've been using the IRC method since the early 90s; it works fine. Sure, there's some appearance of discontinuity but that's a feature, and allows one to personally guage whether the choice to exclude was a good one, without having to be exposed to the comments of the one ignored. Shadowbans aren't akin to SMTP tarpits insofar as the target of force is less likely to be a bot. Behind the silence is a human being who is trying to engage others.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  I've been using IRC since the early 90s as well, and it doesn't work "fine" when you ignore active members of a community who get quoted and such. SMTP tarpits are like shadow bans because the perpetrator isn't informed about the ban/tarpit, and its meant to slow them down by wasting their time in their bubble that they are getting "work" done.
  - dleslie 8y ago
    If they're active members of the community that are regularly quoted then banning them is unlikely to be the best course of action; I prefer to publicly announce that I'm ignoring someone, and perhaps why, before I do. Banning active and valuable community members should, at least, be public and transparent, lest the community react negatively. SMTP tarpits are more likely to involve a perpetrator who is operating a bot, and less likely a perpetrator who is personally engaged in the conversation and community.

com2kid 8y ago

> they are choosing to disallow others from hearing what the target has to say HN allows you to turn on shadowbanned posts. In the several years I've been here, I've seen maybe 3 or 4 shadow banned posts that were of value. In those cases, other users replied to the shadow banned user and told them to message the mods about getting the shadow ban lifted. Heavy moderation of the tone of message works. In a similar vein, the neutral politics sub on reddit is successful because they ban people who are rude. I think that if we moderated tone more often, that a lot of the toxic communities wouldn't even form.