3 ms·
> As counter-intuitive as it is, throttling without blocking is a more effective form of information control than blatantly blocking. This is equally true for
by QuinnWilton 7y ago
> As counter-intuitive as it is, throttling without blocking is a more effective form of information control than blatantly blocking.
This is equally true for removing problematic users from a site. Outright banning them might anger them to the point of becoming a bigger nuisance, but throttling them (without their knowledge) is more likely to just bore them into targeting another service.
I know I've seen others here talk about this technique too, but I'm blanking on specific examples.
- dmoy 7y agoShadow banning is incredibly effective for awhile, yes.
- QuinnWilton 7y agoIn this case I'm talking about slowbanning: https://blog.codinghorror.com/suspension-ban-or-hellban/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/suspension-ban-or-hellban/ > A slowbanned user has delays forcibly introduced into every page they visit. From their perspective, your site has just gotten terribly, horribly slow. And stays that way. They can hardly disrupt the community when they're struggling to get web pages to load. There's also science behind this one, because per research from Google and Amazon, every page load delay directly reduces participation. Get slow enough, for long enough, and a slowbanned user is likely to seek out greener and speedier pastures elsewhere on the internet.
- rjsw 7y agoI social media site I use restricts problematic posters to one message per day.