5 ms·

We 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 adv

We 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 ago
you 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 ago
    when 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
    Of course they can. They just can't sell you stuff based on false premises. E.g. selling an ad that won't display because you're shadow banned but you don't know that.
Nuzzerino 7y ago
> "We need a new internet bill of rights." And we'll never get one as long as everyone who wants one is not being the change they want to see in the world.
restlessdesign 7y ago
Not gonna happen. But so what? At least 51% of the internet is already shady.
driverdan 7y ago
We need to eliminate software patents. And site owners should be able to do whatever they want within their site. Don't like it? Don't use it.
- t-writescode 7y ago
  Erf. This gets a bit complicated when those services start turning into a public forum because they're (effectively) the only gig in town. I'm thinking YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, Google when I'm talking about these sorts of things. We've also got the fun game of "Platform or Publisher?" and responsibility about the content on the site itself. Is it right for a CEO to get charged with a crime if someone on their website offers sexual services (SESTA / FOSTA)? Well, if it's an open forum, absolutely not. If the company is in complete control of their content? That's a different story. Now the question becomes "how much control over content can a CEO give up and still remain responsible for the content on the site?" and where we as a society decide we need to end up on that gradient is where we answer the question: "what should site owners be able to do on their site." I agree with you about software patents, though. I think software patents across the board do more harm than good.
mikekchar 7y ago
Why should a system provide fairness to a user who is banned? The purpose of not informing them that they are banned is to slow down their attempts to work around the ban. Shadow banning is what you do when you do not want to interact with that user ever again. They are no longer a member of your services. This does not masquerade as providing fairness at all. It's nothing to do with fairness. It is removing that user in a way that makes it difficult for them to come back. That is all.
- asveikau 7y ago
  > Why should a system provide fairness to a user who is banned? Firstly, not all shadow bannings are guaranteed to be fair and not due to some judgement error by moderators or moderation algorithms. Secondly, I would argue that sites like Facebook are uniquely positioned to cause harm to users for whom its moderators or algorithms have failed. It has been commented and studied that heavy facebook use is correlated to depression. [1] It has also been commented that facebook feeds your dopamine response cycle. [2] A user who has been unfairly targeted by FB moderation may feel isolated from friends and family, may feel like they suddenly lost their dopamine fix, and may therefore experience psychological distress and isolation. It's not hard to imagine how a decision to shadow ban can have real consequences on the banned, who may in truth be decent human beings not deserving of such treatment. Footnotes - Some random citations from google searches on this topic - by no means exhaustive: [1] https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jscp.2014.33.8.701 https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jscp.2014.33.8.... [2] http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-...
  - wyqydsyq 7y ago
    While it's true that there are clear psychological effects to using social media habitually, I don't think just because someone may be dependent on something to be happy means the provider has any obligations to continue service. There is a similar dopamine response cycle with gambling addicts, but a casino barring an addict for the safety of themselves and other customers is hardly seen as "unfair" or unethical regardless of how the banned person feels, because similar to with social media bans, it is generally seen as being for the benefit of the community and even the banned members themselves. A banned FB addict might spiral into depression just like a barred gambling addict, but in both cases if anything the ban is helping the person face and overcome their addiction rather than continued service which would be enabling or perpetuating their addiction.
420codebro 7y ago
Flip side argument: I have moderated forums and bulletin boards going back to around 2000. Every time we were "attacked" or "raided" the people would IMMEDIATELY create new accounts after being actively banned (telling the user they are banned, and publicly labeling their "rank" as BANNED). When we switched to shadow bans (I think it was termed "global ignore"), the attacks would immediately stop, because the [usual] script kiddie / troll just thinks he isn't getting any bites, and leaves. Of course a few figured out what was going on, but it was seriously one or two orders of magnitude better in terms of manageability, specifically dealing with trolls and spammers. That said, I would never support something such as disallowing shadow banning in an internet bill of rights. That goes way overboard and just ties the hands of legitimate platform operators.
cgriswald 7y ago
I managed a support forum in the late nineties/early aughts. It was a support forum for a particular mental health condition, so we expected a lot of not-always-perfect behavior and tolerated a lot of it. But with some people it was always hostile and over the top (e.g. somewhat credible death threats) . We always outright banned first (after fair warnings). It’s easiest. That worked for some, who emailed, apologized, and ended up being great community members. Others not so much. When they came back repeatedly with a new account after multiple bans with no change in behavior they got shadowbanned. The couple of users that figured it out and came back again got the nuclear option. Imperfectly and without guarantee of no collateral damage, it linked IPs, accounts, etc of the user. They could register a new account but the shadow ban followed them unless they were very careful; in which case we just applied it manually. The thing is, you have to make the system easier for you to control than it is for them to exploit. Otherwise they’ll just grind you down until they “win”.
- moksly 7y ago
  Couldn’t you have IP banned them instead of shadow IP banning them and achieved the same thing?
  - throwawayjava 7y ago
    We did something similar for a browser-based RPG game 15ish years ago. Shadow banning is way more effective. IP bans don't work because even tech illiterate users can figure out what's going on and get a proxy working. We ended up going with normal account-level banning after experimenting with IP-based shadow banning. The game was popular with kids, who would tell their siblings/school friends about it. So lots of IPs were associated, and at the time teasing apart different traffic streams from the same IP was sci-fi level stuff. But, we did learn that normal banning was way less effective. If it weren't for the collateral damage, we would've kept shadow banning with IP account association.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    No. A ban gave them instant feedback for testing ways around the ban. It also gave them instant gratification if they bypassed the ban. The shadowban slowed them way down by denying the feedback. A user would have to respond to them for them to even know they did it. If they did, we’d manually shadowban that one too and they wouldn’t realize for awhile. Lots of work for them. Little for us.
wyqydsyq 7y ago
> This is not only censorship but false advertising Proprietary platforms are under no obligation to host your content. Choosing to deny access or full use of their products to you isn't "censorship"
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Kaveren 7y ago

you 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 ago
  when 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
  Of course they can. They just can't sell you stuff based on false premises. E.g. selling an ad that won't display because you're shadow banned but you don't know that.

Nuzzerino 7y ago

> "We need a new internet bill of rights." And we'll never get one as long as everyone who wants one is not being the change they want to see in the world.

restlessdesign 7y ago

Not gonna happen. But so what? At least 51% of the internet is already shady.

driverdan 7y ago

We need to eliminate software patents. And site owners should be able to do whatever they want within their site. Don't like it? Don't use it.

t-writescode 7y ago
Erf. This gets a bit complicated when those services start turning into a public forum because they're (effectively) the only gig in town. I'm thinking YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, Google when I'm talking about these sorts of things. We've also got the fun game of "Platform or Publisher?" and responsibility about the content on the site itself. Is it right for a CEO to get charged with a crime if someone on their website offers sexual services (SESTA / FOSTA)? Well, if it's an open forum, absolutely not. If the company is in complete control of their content? That's a different story. Now the question becomes "how much control over content can a CEO give up and still remain responsible for the content on the site?" and where we as a society decide we need to end up on that gradient is where we answer the question: "what should site owners be able to do on their site." I agree with you about software patents, though. I think software patents across the board do more harm than good.

mikekchar 7y ago

Why should a system provide fairness to a user who is banned? The purpose of not informing them that they are banned is to slow down their attempts to work around the ban. Shadow banning is what you do when you do not want to interact with that user ever again. They are no longer a member of your services. This does not masquerade as providing fairness at all. It's nothing to do with fairness. It is removing that user in a way that makes it difficult for them to come back. That is all.

asveikau 7y ago
> Why should a system provide fairness to a user who is banned? Firstly, not all shadow bannings are guaranteed to be fair and not due to some judgement error by moderators or moderation algorithms. Secondly, I would argue that sites like Facebook are uniquely positioned to cause harm to users for whom its moderators or algorithms have failed. It has been commented and studied that heavy facebook use is correlated to depression. [1] It has also been commented that facebook feeds your dopamine response cycle. [2] A user who has been unfairly targeted by FB moderation may feel isolated from friends and family, may feel like they suddenly lost their dopamine fix, and may therefore experience psychological distress and isolation. It's not hard to imagine how a decision to shadow ban can have real consequences on the banned, who may in truth be decent human beings not deserving of such treatment. Footnotes - Some random citations from google searches on this topic - by no means exhaustive: [1] https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jscp.2014.33.8.701 https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jscp.2014.33.8.... [2] http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-...
- wyqydsyq 7y ago
  While it's true that there are clear psychological effects to using social media habitually, I don't think just because someone may be dependent on something to be happy means the provider has any obligations to continue service. There is a similar dopamine response cycle with gambling addicts, but a casino barring an addict for the safety of themselves and other customers is hardly seen as "unfair" or unethical regardless of how the banned person feels, because similar to with social media bans, it is generally seen as being for the benefit of the community and even the banned members themselves. A banned FB addict might spiral into depression just like a barred gambling addict, but in both cases if anything the ban is helping the person face and overcome their addiction rather than continued service which would be enabling or perpetuating their addiction.

420codebro 7y ago

Flip side argument: I have moderated forums and bulletin boards going back to around 2000. Every time we were "attacked" or "raided" the people would IMMEDIATELY create new accounts after being actively banned (telling the user they are banned, and publicly labeling their "rank" as BANNED). When we switched to shadow bans (I think it was termed "global ignore"), the attacks would immediately stop, because the [usual] script kiddie / troll just thinks he isn't getting any bites, and leaves. Of course a few figured out what was going on, but it was seriously one or two orders of magnitude better in terms of manageability, specifically dealing with trolls and spammers. That said, I would never support something such as disallowing shadow banning in an internet bill of rights. That goes way overboard and just ties the hands of legitimate platform operators.

cgriswald 7y ago

I managed a support forum in the late nineties/early aughts. It was a support forum for a particular mental health condition, so we expected a lot of not-always-perfect behavior and tolerated a lot of it. But with some people it was always hostile and over the top (e.g. somewhat credible death threats) . We always outright banned first (after fair warnings). It’s easiest. That worked for some, who emailed, apologized, and ended up being great community members. Others not so much. When they came back repeatedly with a new account after multiple bans with no change in behavior they got shadowbanned. The couple of users that figured it out and came back again got the nuclear option. Imperfectly and without guarantee of no collateral damage, it linked IPs, accounts, etc of the user. They could register a new account but the shadow ban followed them unless they were very careful; in which case we just applied it manually. The thing is, you have to make the system easier for you to control than it is for them to exploit. Otherwise they’ll just grind you down until they “win”.

moksly 7y ago
Couldn’t you have IP banned them instead of shadow IP banning them and achieved the same thing?
- throwawayjava 7y ago
  We did something similar for a browser-based RPG game 15ish years ago. Shadow banning is way more effective. IP bans don't work because even tech illiterate users can figure out what's going on and get a proxy working. We ended up going with normal account-level banning after experimenting with IP-based shadow banning. The game was popular with kids, who would tell their siblings/school friends about it. So lots of IPs were associated, and at the time teasing apart different traffic streams from the same IP was sci-fi level stuff. But, we did learn that normal banning was way less effective. If it weren't for the collateral damage, we would've kept shadow banning with IP account association.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  No. A ban gave them instant feedback for testing ways around the ban. It also gave them instant gratification if they bypassed the ban. The shadowban slowed them way down by denying the feedback. A user would have to respond to them for them to even know they did it. If they did, we’d manually shadowban that one too and they wouldn’t realize for awhile. Lots of work for them. Little for us.

wyqydsyq 7y ago

> This is not only censorship but false advertising Proprietary platforms are under no obligation to host your content. Choosing to deny access or full use of their products to you isn't "censorship"

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]