22 ms·
Facebook has been granted patent on shadow banning
- ghda 7y agoGreat! Maybe now I can get un-shadowbanned on HN?
- allana 7y agoHasn't Reddit been issuing shadow bans for the last decade? I think shadow banning people is really shitty. In Reddit's case, they shadowbanned me immediately after I bought Reddit gold, and an unpaid, unaffiliated subreddit moderator let me know that my account was snowbanned. Getting Reddit to reverse the ban took sending a message to an admin and waiting a few weeks. This shadow ban, the continuing degredation of old.reddit.com (its showing incorrect URLs now), and people getting pissed off at me when I suggest breaking up their wall of text into paragraphs (replying "this is just Facebook!" or similar) have pushed me away. I'm not on Facebook, and I don't want to interact with people who can't be bothered to put in a modicum of effort to comply with subreddit stanfards and rules. Sadly, Reddit has chosen to tailor itself to adopt this demographic over the last few years :c
- Raphmedia 7y agoOnly administrators or automatic spam detection tools can shadowban. Regular moderators cannot. Reddit gold is not a subscription to Reddit. This is a donation function that displays a badge. You didn't have a premium account and you weren't above the rules. Being picky, mean or downright unpleasant will get you banned you from certain places. Unless done in a polite and educational manner, calling out people for their lack of punctuation or grammatical errors is generally frowned upon and considered toxic behaviour since it does not contribute to the conversation.
- Deimorz 7y agoYou're wrong about multiple things here. Regular moderators can effectively shadowban inside their subreddits by using AutoModerator and telling it to remove all posts made by certain users. Reddit Gold has literally been renamed to Reddit Premium and is described officially as both a "premium membership" and a "subscription": https://www.reddit.com/premium https://www.reddit.com/premium
- true_religion 7y agoThat’s not shadow banning. That’s regular banning. To shadow ban, the suspect has to not know they are being affected. Automoderator is not subtle.
- txcwpalpha 7y agoApparently you've never (knowingly) been shadowbanned by AutoMod. Deimorz (the guy you're responding to) created AutoMod when he worked at Reddit, and I can assure you that AutoMod is more than capable of removing all of your comments without you knowing (and the only way for you to know is to try to view your profile in incognito mode, or have someone else tell you that they can't see any of your comments).
- ziddoap 7y agoAn "effective shadowban" using AM to remove comments is not the same thing as a global shadowban issued by site-wide admins, by any stretch.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- allana 7y ago>Only administrators or automatic spam detection tools can shadowban. Regular moderators cannot. Regular mods see shadowbanned posts in the modqueue. In my case, the admins confirmed the automated spam detection snowbanned my account shortly after I paid for Reddit Gold. >You didn't have a premium account and you weren't above the rules. I didn't break any rules or expect any special treatment, all I wanted was a silly badge... >Being picky, mean or downright unpleasant will get you banned you from certain places. I have never been warned or banned for any of this type of behavior on reddit. It is critical to assume the other party is writing in good faith when interacting IMO.
- TheLastPass 7y ago>> Hasn't Reddit been issuing shadow bans for the last decade? vBulletin has been doing it for well over 15 years too.
- SmileyRedBall 7y agoallana, your comment has been voted into invisibility :]
- allana 7y agoIs what it is, I kinda expected that when going against the HN groupthink...
- _-david-_ 7y ago>the continuing degredation of old.reddit.com (its showing incorrect URLs now) What do you mean by showing incorrect URLs? I use old.reddit.com all the time and haven't noticed anything wrong.
- allana 7y agoI've repeately seen links in subreddits that send me to an article, where if I viww the subreddit in the new UI, I see the post actually links me to a post in a different subreddit that eventually links to said article. I reported a post which was then removed as a duplicate due to this bug recently, and OP ended up notifying myself and the mod of this bug (since only OP used the new UI).
- sarcasmatwork 7y agoLots of entities do it. It's usually a feature in the software that runs the admin interface. FB should not be granted this patent. This is crazy! https://gizmodo.com/facebook-patents-shadowbanning-1836411346 https://gizmodo.com/facebook-patents-shadowbanning-183641134...
- toomuchtodo 7y agoLet us bust the patent then! EDIT: Prior art for this seems straightforward to demonstrate. https://www.eff.org/patent-busting https://www.eff.org/patent-busting
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- amelius 7y ago"I'm not shadowbanning, I'm just not showing all posts in everybody's feed."
- oconnor663 7y agoLots and lots of software patents wouldn't pass a reasonable non-obviousness test. Until the patent rules get changed, every big tech company will patent everything under the sun.
- xtiansimon 7y ago> ‘...every big tech company will patent everything under the sun.’ And when litigation, right or wrong, is won by the deepest pockets (settlement), I imagine this is just one arrow in the quiver of evil FB. WTF else is in there?
- burkaman 7y agoThis is obviously a dumb patent that should have been rejected, but it is at least limited by the clause "wherein the specified connection type is a one-to-one friend connection". Always ignore the abstract and description in a patent and only look at the claims. Another extremely specific claim: "wherein the proscribed content is stored as a trie data structure wherein each letter of a proscribed word is a key."
- rolph 7y agoso i assume this means FB could demand $$ or cease and desist? also : >>thereby providing fewer incentives to the commenting user to spam the page or attempt to circumvent the social networking system filters. << I would think its just the opposite and would encourage whack-a-mole antics, as in many sockpuppets. just how many shadowban posts would a blog socmedia etcetera see as acceptable overhead to further the illusion of transmitted posts during a shadowban. i would think its a problem to carry a bunch of content, to show to only one person. putting the grey hat on, it could make a beautiful online scratch pad, or even a dead drop so a number of people could use the shadow banned account to communicate exclusively with each other.
- sova 7y ago"Quick! show me the top secret schematics of your new engine under the hood so I can make sure you're not infringing on my patents"
- jrcii 7y agodang will be so disappointed he can’t shadow ban people that fail to conform to his far-left political agenda
- Erudire_Genius 7y agoGreat. Instead of stopping Facebook's fascist tyranny... we let them PATENT IT! Reason 35,328,422 to switch to Minds.com.
- rdlecler1 7y agoCompanies may patent something so they’re not later sued for it.
- ppseafield 7y agoAnd also sometimes they sue, like with Amazon's 1 Click Checkout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Barnes_&_Noble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Barnes_&_Noble
- krferriter 7y agoThe notion that clicking a button to buy something using the pre-entered billing information on the account was able to be patented is absurd. It's not an invention, it's just a feature of that particular website. Patenting the notion of clicking once to do something so that competitors have to require users to click 2 or more times... it's difficult for me to even describe how ridiculous it is. Imagine if other companies started patenting other numbers of clicks. Like B&N patenting 2 click checkouts. Apple patenting 3 click checkouts... this is clearly what patents were intended to be used for.
- zaroth 7y agoRemember one-click is a patent which expired in 2017. So back in 1997, the technology was actually transformational at that time, and now it’s free for anyone to use forever more. You can argue the exclusivity period is too long, but Amazon absolutely trail-blazed checkout technology, and the trade-off of the patent system is now their exclusivity is over, and the technology is free for all. At least one thing we don’t have to worry about in tech is “ever-greening”.
- dmwallin 7y agoThe whole point of offering patents is to encourage innovation. It’s extremely doubtful that the offer of patent exclusivity played any part in their push to develop this technology which makes this an obvious failure of the patent system, this would still have been invented in a world without the ability to patent it. Less money would have been burned through the legal system and instead could have been put to more productive use. While we accept some amount of failure in order to benefit from the theoretical upsides of the patent system, it’s also important to call things as they are so we can improve the average results for our economy.
- creaghpatr 7y agoReddit hardest hit.
- holler 7y agohackernews shadow bans as well, and I'm sure many other sites do. Next they will patent commenting on an online web page.
- jrockway 7y agoSort of? I browse with "showdead" on, so I can see these shadow-banned comments. But maybe there is a second level?
- cojxd 7y agoThere's no second level I know of unless we consider automatically collapsed comments to be a second level.
- jacquesm 7y agoYes, you can. But the whole idea of the shadowbanning is that the one who is shadowbanned does not. So you get this effect where someone is talking to himself or the walls and they don't even know it, sometimes this goes on for years.
- HeavenBanned 7y ago
- trhway 7y agoas an author of a small batch (~10, give or take some at various stages) software patents, my experience has been so far that the strictest filter is your company patent office - they usually pick the crappiest ideas dismissing the better ones with long-winded explanations (which almost always can be reduced to "too science-y") - and whatever crap they decide to throw on the USPTO wall seems to be sticking there just fine. I'm really curious about USPTO examiners brain inner workings :)
- rolltiide 7y agoone thing I do after getting a 101 or 102 "not patentable" rejection is to fire up the PR engine and get articles posted about the innovation and similar patents or products released by companies with more clout make sure to mention inventors names (link to them if you can) sometimes the patent examiner magically does a 180, hope the PR is helping another use of the PR is to find potential suitors and licensees of the patent its always written as a "not advertisement". kind of like how a buzzfeed listicle isn't an advertisement, but little do you know that the 3rd thing in the list is the one that got the whole listicle written to begin with.
- moron4hire 7y agoI think this deserves a reminder that Facebook cancels all of your licenses to all of their software (which includes such things as React) if you are in any sort of patent dispute with them (whether they've filed it against you or you against them).
- true_religion 7y agoI thought they cancelled your patent grants for a project if you came into a patent dispute with the project. Also React was relicenced.
- cma 7y agoBefore the relicensing it even covered things like you suing them for violating a non-software patent resulting in getting your react patent license pulled (can't remember if it was general react license pulled or just the patent grant, I think the latter).
- miketery 7y agoIf I recall they removed that restriction from the react license.
- gnomewascool 7y ago(Further devolving into off-topic:) What I don't understand is why they moved from BSD+Patents to MIT, and not to pure BSD, by just removing the Patents file, which would be the obvious step?
- jimrandomh 7y agoNot currently true, at least for React. https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE
- en4bz 7y agoPrior art exists. This is already invalid. Just needs to go to court first.
- sova 7y agoPrior art that nobody with nearly as much clout is claiming. No antagonist? no compromise
- btilly 7y agoThey filed for this in 2011. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning there is precedent from the 1980s, and Fogbugz had this feature in 2006. I don't know when Reddit implemented it, but by 2012 it was widely known that they did, so they may have implemented it first as well. How was this patent granted?
- pmiller2 7y agoPrior art may go back further than the 1980s. I seem to recall that on some old MUDs, you could be “toaded,” or maybe “frogged,” which would make you look to others like a toad/frog, and anything you said would display as “ribbit” or something. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD and https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=kt367nc6m1&chunk.id=ch03&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch03&brand=ucpress https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=kt367n...
- Beldin 7y agoFrom Wikipedia: [MUD1] became the first Internet multiplayer online role-playing game in 1980, when the university connected its internal network to ARPANet. Which dates that particular piece of prior art to 1980 or later. [MUD1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD
- zaroth 7y agoWow, thanks for the trip down memory lane. I can’t remember if the effected user would know it was happening on their end?
- pmiller2 7y agoI don't either. That's why I hedged with the word 'may'.
- ShinTakuya 7y agoUsually they would know but there was a couple of MUDs that hid it. Of course you found out pretty quickly because everyone would find the hyperactive toad hilarious.
- mlvljr 7y agoFinally!
- scottydelta 7y agois there a way for people to write a letter of reconsideration on this patent to USPTO by general public or may be a petition backed by a group?
- sova 7y agoUnder the America Invents Act there are 3 ways to challenge patent validity. By partes review (2nd option), with prior art, you must show it's either not inventive, or not novel (violating sections 102 or 103 of 35 U.S.C.)
- badmadrad 7y agoWe need a new internet bill of rights. I feel like it's more ethical to just outright ban someone than to shadow ban. This is not only censorship but false advertising. When you interact on social media you expect a certain level of fairness and visibility of your content. This masquerades as providing that fairness when in fact you are screaming in an empty room. Shady.
- Kaveren 7y agoyou don't have a right not to be shadow banned. it's the best solution to many problems with trolls who will keep coming back on new accounts, with new IP addresses and so on. it's really hard to get shadow banned most places, you have to earn it. also you don't have a right not to be censored by private companies.
- claudiawerner 7y ago>you don't have a right not to be shadow banned. Not that I'm necessarily arguing for GP's point here, but the point of a bill of rights is to grant or in some way codify rights that people think they should have. They are not necessarily lists of natural rights that won't be violated.
- Kaveren 7y agowhen I say that it should be taken to mean "you don't (and are not entitled to)". there are a few bad actors who are persistent and tools like shadow banning are very helpful with that, saying that socialism is awful isn't going to get you shadow banned.
- tengbretson 7y ago> you don't have a right not to be shadow banned You kind of do. They can't claim they offer one experience and then knowingly provide another, lesser one.
- TomMarius 7y ago
- mnehring 7y agoI looked at the USPTO's Public PAIR system (https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) and this patent was rejected multiple times before finally being accepted. (Non-final rejection 6/7/2016, final rejection 2/21/2017, non-final rejection 1/3/2018, final rejection 1/7/2019, patent issued 7/16/2019.) Seriously patent office? You should have paid attention to your 4 previous rejections instead of giving in to Facebook's lawyers and persistence. If you see a patent in the application pipeline that you know is bogus (obvious or prior art), you can do a preissuance submission: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissuance-submissions https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third-party-preissu... I challenged a patent application and it was rejected. Now, I can't say if the patent examiner already knew that the patent was both obvious and had prior art, or if my application informed him of that, but it was rejected.
- vallismortis 7y agoNot such a bad thing. Each rejection results in a narrowing of the scope and claims of the patent. The resulting claims that are granted will be far narrower than scope of the original specification.
- foobiekr 7y agoit's actually worth looking at the claims just as an exercise. they are incredibly narrow, there must have been many objections here.
- kabdib 7y agoHint: Just read the claims. Skip right to them, and ignore everything else. The claims are effectively the legal part, the pretty pictures and verbiage that usually precede them are essentially useless (and sometimes have little to do with what is being claimed).
- NoodleIncident 7y ago> 1. A method comprising: receiving a comment from a posting user of a social networking system, the comment posted on a page within the social networking system; determining, by a processor, that the comment includes proscribed content; and responsive to the determination: identifying users of the social networking system who are connected to the posting user in the social networking system with a specified connection type, wherein the specified connection type is a one-to-one friend connection; determining, by the processor, a social networking system audience for the comment without input from the posting user, the processor determining the social networking system audience before providing the comment for display; and displaying the comment to the audience by: formatting the page including the comment to the posting user, and formatting the page not including the comment to users of the social networking system accessing the page who are not connected to the posting user with the specified connection type. This sounds like it's not exactly shadow banning; your direct friends can still see your comment. I'm vaguely aware that they have special comment sections on "public" pages, articles, etc, that filter the giant thread down to stuff your friends actually wrote. I'm guessing that at some point, if you were banned from the page/etc, then your friends also couldn't see what you wrote. If that's true, then this is a little nicer to the banned user than a shadowban.
- bitwize 7y agoSo now Facebook has a patent on an alt-right conspiracy theory...?
- sarcasmOrTears 7y agoAnother gift from the State to a big corporation. Since basically only big corps get advantages from patents I think it's time to abolish it
- jMyles 7y agoHear hear. This is a great time to experiment with reducing (or in some cases eliminating) the protection offered by the state under the guise of intellectual property. If the US doesn't do it, others will, to their own distinct advantage.
- osswid 7y agoWe had shadow banning in the Topix forums in 2005.
- crazy_monkey 7y agoTake that Republicans! ... or so they say
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jedberg 7y agoThis is ridiculous. We had shadow banning on reddit in 2007, four years before this was ever filed. In fact, we met with Facebook and told them about it before 2011, and they hadn't considered it before that. I'm pretty sure reddit is where they got the idea... To be fair, there was no public record of it until 2012 or so.
- StefanKarpinski 7y agoShadowbanning didn't originate at Reddit either, it's been a feature of online forums since at least the 90s.
- Skywing 7y agoThis! We were shadowbanning people on IRC in like 2001. Unreal IRCd had a shadowban plugin that literally did exactly what modern shadowban features do.
- jedberg 7y agoNo of course it didn't. I'm just saying I think Facebook implemented it after we told them about it on reddit. It wasn't something they had thought of before that. We did it on reddit without knowledge of the other cases too. It's a pretty obvious solution honestly.
- nkozyra 7y agoThat seems unlikely, shadow banning has been around for a long long time.
- wyxuan 7y agoIs it possible that FB did this so they could block any potential patent trolls? Correct me if I'm wrong, but FB isn't really known as a patent troll.
- ransom1538 7y agoI am almost done with my "addslashes" patent. Given a string, my algorithm will put a backslash in front of all quotes. It's been rejected 4 times and cost $32k, but, this next time my lawyer informed me it's going in.
- JTxt 7y agoDoesn't Hacker News shadow ban too? When did that start?
- Slashbot 7y agoSo now that faceb0rg have the patent on shadow banning which is just a fucking shitty thing to do anyway.. no other shit hole company will be able to do the same thing without infringing on faceb0rg...everyone else will just have to issue out bans properly instead of wasting the time of its end users with shadow bans when they should just ban users and they can move on from shitty such platforms.
- codewritinfool 7y agoNo one will believe me, but I had this feature on a BBS I wrote back in about 1986 or 1987. I cannot prove it because the code no longer exists. I had a problem user that kept posting junk to the forum. I deleted things for a while and then thought of this as a solution. It seemed to work. The user never knew that no one else could see those posts.
- apotatopot 7y agoI believe you.
- pipingdog 7y agoAs a BBS user in the 80s I believe you. It was a common feature, usually referred to as the twit bit.
- jeltz 7y agoSince it is such an obvious idea which was common much later on bulletin boards, I think that your claim is believable.
- zaroth 7y agoI think it’s important to recognize, at least, that all forms of shadow banning are not broadly covered by this patent. I’m not a patent lawyer, but looking at the claims, the way that forums like HN, Reddit, IRC implement shadow banning do not appear to infringe on this patent. It seems likely to me that by the time the claims were done being narrowed after the multiple rounds of rejections, they have managed to patent something narrow enough that only they are actually doing it. Specifically, any kind of shadow banning that occurs at the level of a “channel” wide audience, and not a one-to-one connection, appears to not be covered. The way to read the claims, as I understand it, is everything within a single claim is a logical AND in order to infringe the claim, and dependent claims require everything in the parent claim as well as everything in the subsequent one to hold true. If any one part of a single claim does not apply to your system, then you do not infringe that particular claim. Should Facebook be able to take a hyper-specialized application of a common feature and patent that particular application? It comes down to whether their implementation is unique and distinctive enough to be novel and non-obvious. I do think in this case it’s totally dicey to say that shadow banning on a friend-based feed versus a channel-based feed is really a novel and non-obvious application of shadow banning. But at least it is a fairly narrow application that they are claiming. If you want to show prior art against this patent, I assume it would have to be on a friend-based feed and not a channel-based feed. The first thing I would do if taking this to court would be to read “green eggs and ham” to the jury. Facebook is trying to patent a particular place where you can eat green eggs and ham. It’s nonsense and should be thrown out, and they should be embarrassed to have pursued this. But it’s also not really that worrisome.
- batoure 7y agoAgreed I would argue that this patent probably wouldn't go through today now that the USPTO is more adjusted to Alice V CLS. I think that anyone hit with this could argue for dismissal under Alice.
- benj111 7y agoOut of interest. Would it be copyright infringement to read 'Green Eggs & Ham' to a court? If not, what would be the status of the court transcript???
- 7y ago
- tareqak 7y agoCan a patent be invalidated after it's been granted?
- patentatt 7y agoYes. Through the PTO (reexam, IPR, other PTAB proceedings) or through a federal court. Happens every day.
- saint_abroad 7y agoPTO invalidation happens every day but takes /years/ to process. Until then, frivolous patent holders have free rein to coerce contracts that licence claims they know won't stand re-examination. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/17/federal-circuit-affirms-ptab-invalidate-mphj-patent/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/17/federal-circuit-affirm...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- GrumpyNl 7y agoWhat if i can proof, we did that already in 2001?
- saalweachter 7y agoI'm surprised no one has commented on this yet.
- mung 7y agoOn the upside, if Facebook was the only company that could shadow ban, that would be a win for the rest of the internet, and a bit of an own goal for Facebook since the practice is pretty despicable.
- DesiLurker 7y agothis is how legal sector makes money off of tech sector & locks everything up.
- cojxd 7y agoNowadays shadowbanning is so widespread that I wonder if it's useful at all. It's the kind of thing that blows your mind the first time it happens to you, but then you learn to check for it everywhere.
- madprops 7y agoI find shadow banning disgusting. Makes me angry to have legitimate thoughts silenced through some simple switch just because of some temporary "undesired" behavior caused by my nature of having a plethora of emotions that varies depending on many factors.
- jeltz 7y agoI do not like it either but the main use for it in forums I have been involved in was to protect the forum from being destroyed by mentally ill users and the people responding to their incoherent rants. Banning them never worked.
- bandrami 7y ago> I find shadow banning disgusting. Then you are too young to remember Mentifex
- fortran77 7y agoGood! Maybe Hacker News will stop shadow banning me! Our company, which has a number of "software" patents, also implements shadow banning in a communications application, and we never even thought to patent that. Despite the fact that we review all new features for patentability before they're released.
- jiveturkey 7y agoThe patent office actually received many challenges and claims of prior art for this, however the submitters in question were shadow banned so were not aware that their complaints were not received.
- Pywarrior 7y agoSomeone else essentially patented data lineage, processing a dataset and tracking which records passed/failed a set of validations and storing a code for each validation that failed. Thanks Obama and your first to file change.
- zifnab06 7y agoMy favorite patent so far came out of Apple. They received a patent on receiving data, recognizing it was a certain type of data, and performing an action on it. And what was this used for? A user clicks a phone number and it brings up the phone app.
- sdinsn 7y agoFailure/corruption of the patent office. There is so much prior art.
- noncoml 7y agoThey cannot shadow ban you if you don't have an account!
- daodedickinson 7y agoGoogle started using recaptcha to shadowban me from posting on any site using it yesterday. This evil must stop. I'm being censored for completely non-violent beneficial posts that simply expose wrong doing by the otherwise unaccountable "intelligence" "services".
- ianamartin 7y agoWelp, this is going to get right the fuck challenged. And my guess is that the people who challenge it are going to make sure it ends up in Judge Alsup’s court, if possible.
- michaelmrose 7y agoThere ought to be a fine of 1/10 of 1% of annual profit for seeking and granting a patent later deemed obvious. The money from said fine ought to be granted to the party that brings evidence to court that the patent has been granted in error. Further the examiner who approved it ought to be terminated. Ample reason for both parties to do a better job. I hereby suggest that we petition the government to fire the individual who granted this. Is the most appropriate venue for this farcical quest change.org? Alternatively we can just admit that the entire patent system is better off scrapped.
- dymk 7y agoThe primary reason Facebook acquires so many patents is because every engineer is incentivized by a $5,000 cash bonus to file for one, and so they shepherd it through.
- zwarag 7y agoWhat is this, a Software Patent?
- holstvoogd 7y agoLol, I've implemented shadow banning on a municipal website in 2009. We called it the Mao-filter and that was a direct ripoff from a political party that had that on their website. It was about as innovative as, I dunno, having comments in the first place?
- JDiculous 7y agoHow the hell does this possibly warrant a patent?
- ToFab123 7y agoThis i made on my website in 1999. In my case it was an online poll, but the principle was the same. When people attempted to vote multiple times, the count would only increase locally in the spammers browser. Only the first vote was saved in the database. The spamming votes we stored in a cookie on client and added them to the results before rendering the result so he believed he submitted multiple votes. We had some server side logging as well. Was funny to see in the logs, the number of people that tried to submit multiple votes and to see a few user submitting a lot before realizing the votes didn't get added to the db. Was very effective and reduced the worst of the spamming significantly.
- joestr87 7y agoIf they care about making the whole Internet a safer place to all, why would they patent this?
- Fjolsvith 7y agoI am laughing myself silly over this. Now we have a 25 year moratorium on shadow banning in Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, etc...
- sroussey 7y agoI did this in 1999
- john4534243 7y agoIsn't this good for privacy. Now only facebook should be avoided because legally no other company can claim end to end encryption and do shadow banning.
- miramardesign 7y agothis is how the leftists cucks will delete this comment...