4 ms·

Lots 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://gizm

Lots 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 ago
Let 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 ago
Lots 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 ago
This 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."
- buro9 7y ago
  But forums like vBulletin, XenForo, Microcosm and many others have the concept of following someone, and of ignoring someone. When ignored, it really is no different from a shadow ban.
  - sp332 7y ago
    And those implementations are probably not covered by the patent, so it's fine.
    - mcny 7y ago
      > And those implementations are probably not covered by the patent, so it's fine. I think what the grandparent is saying is that those implementations count as prior art and this application should have been rejected. It is ridiculous to even insinuate that the it is possible that thing that I cannot continue doing the thing I have been doing for decades because someone patented it a decade or two after I started doing it.
      - sp332 7y ago
        Did someone say they couldn't keep doing it? I don't see why they would count as prior art, either. The implementations are different from what was patented.
        zucker42 7y ago
        From my understanding, prior art doesn't haven't to be exactly the same as the invention. The invention just has to be obvious in light of the prior art. In this case, the point is that Facebook's use is obvious, given all the other similar ideas used far before.
kromem 7y ago
Apollo basically did it to Cassandra in ancient Greek myth. Can the Iliad be considered prior art?
- CalChris 7y ago
  You probably mean Aeschylus’ Orestia but I like the idea of being cursed to utter prophesies that no one would listen to as shadow banning.
squeaky-clean 7y ago
HN itself and showdead was actually the first time I learned about shadowbanning.
patentatt 7y ago
Patents are defined by the claims. Go read through every word of every line of the claims, and that is what the patent is directed to. It’s not just a title.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Let 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 ago

Lots 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 ago

This 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."

buro9 7y ago
But forums like vBulletin, XenForo, Microcosm and many others have the concept of following someone, and of ignoring someone. When ignored, it really is no different from a shadow ban.
- sp332 7y ago
  And those implementations are probably not covered by the patent, so it's fine.
  - mcny 7y ago
    > And those implementations are probably not covered by the patent, so it's fine. I think what the grandparent is saying is that those implementations count as prior art and this application should have been rejected. It is ridiculous to even insinuate that the it is possible that thing that I cannot continue doing the thing I have been doing for decades because someone patented it a decade or two after I started doing it.
    - sp332 7y ago
      Did someone say they couldn't keep doing it? I don't see why they would count as prior art, either. The implementations are different from what was patented.
      - zucker42 7y ago
        From my understanding, prior art doesn't haven't to be exactly the same as the invention. The invention just has to be obvious in light of the prior art. In this case, the point is that Facebook's use is obvious, given all the other similar ideas used far before.

kromem 7y ago

Apollo basically did it to Cassandra in ancient Greek myth. Can the Iliad be considered prior art?

CalChris 7y ago
You probably mean Aeschylus’ Orestia but I like the idea of being cursed to utter prophesies that no one would listen to as shadow banning.

squeaky-clean 7y ago

HN itself and showdead was actually the first time I learned about shadowbanning.

patentatt 7y ago

Patents are defined by the claims. Go read through every word of every line of the claims, and that is what the patent is directed to. It’s not just a title.