4 ms·

> Hell, consider how non-welcome a person who thinks Rust sucks would feel on news.ycombinator.com. (tip: very non-welcome) That would be me. I literally got s

> Hell, consider how non-welcome a person who thinks Rust sucks would feel on news.ycombinator.com. (tip: very non-welcome) That would be me. I literally got shadowbanned for criticizing Rust when I first became a member on HN. But I don't feel unwelcome by HN, only by mods, who I don't think of highly anyway, as this pushed me to pay attention to what mods actually do over the years. Nowadays they punish my account again, at least they didn't ban it this time, presumably this time it was because of my opinion on something corporate capitalist they didn't like. > It seems futile to resolve each individual's sense of welcome; to provide a safe-space concurrently for religious white nationalists and black trans activists, and assorted fringes. No matter how fringe, if mods allow, people will still be able to defend and express their opinions here, so only mods can make them feel unwelcome here.

dang 6y ago
> I literally got shadowbanned for criticizing Rust when I first became a member on HN. That can't be true. We couldn't care less whether people criticize Rust.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  I've seen accounts with green usernames that seem to have been shadowbanned for less. Typically, it's a new account that says some reasonable things, and maybe one or two fairly unreasonable things. Getting flagged for the unreasonable things can really kill a brand new account with under 10 karma.
  - dang 6y ago
    "Seem to have been shadowbanned for less" than...criticizing Rust? come on you guys. That's not even close. Perhaps you saw an account that was affected by a software filter, especially if it's new. We try to review the affected posts and immunize legit accounts against the software, but we miss some. > Typically, it's a new account that says some reasonable things, and maybe one or two fairly unreasonable things. Accounts get banned for the worst things they do, not the best. If one day I go get groceries, walk the dog, and set somebody's house on fire, "the majority of things I did were reasonable" is not much of a defense. It's hard to speak in the general case though. People routinely overinterpret what they see based on what they assume is happening. If you haven't specifically asked and we haven't specifically answered, the explanation is probably wrong. It's not hard to get an answer if you try.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Yes, "seem to," as in, I have no idea why, because nobody tells me and it's not publicized anywhere how shadowbanning works. > Accounts get banned for the worst things they do, not the best. Suppose one day I go get groceries, walk the dog, and set somebody's house on fire. It's not a defense that the majority of things I did were reasonable. I'm not talking about "set someone's house on fire" though. I'm talking about a comment that triggers a handful of people to mash the downvote or flag link. Specifically, this account: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=rbecker https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=rbecker which, obviously someone else noticed as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585354 That user's subsequent comments have not been great, but, at the time that I encountered them, they had something like 10 karma. Note how I wasn't the only one who couldn't figure out why they were shadowbanned?
      - dang 6y ago
        > it's not publicized anywhere how shadowbanning works https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20shadowban&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... The account you mentioned isn't banned, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. It has, however, shown signs of being an ideological battle account—quite distinctive signs in fact—and I've already warned it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23665090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23665090. New accounts that have come here to use HN in the intended spirit don't typically post exclusively about racial statistics, immigration, China, why lynchings were not as commonplace as people suppose, and similar things for their first 52 comments. Could it be that that is just a random streak and a wave of intellectual curiosity is about to come? Sure. But at some point, if it walks like a duck, we ban it.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        So, you're saying that both bans and shadowbans are manual interventions? I did not have that impression regarding shadowbans. What I, and the comment I linked to earlier saw was a combination of green username (new account) and every comment after a certain point marked as [dead]. If that's not "shadowbanned," I don't know what it is. This user also seems to attract downvotes to fairly reasonable comments for some unknown reason. That said, yes, this user has some questionable comments, most of which seem to have come after the point where I initially noticed. I don't see any reason why posting about racial statistics, China, immigration, and lynchings is a big red flag, especially the way 2020's been going so far. It is certainly easier to troll on these subjects than it is about how much Rust sucks, but, in isolation, I'd call this a chartreuse flag, at best. I do agree with you about your assessment of this user's current comment history, however.
nonbirithm 6y ago
It's possible you could have been shadowbanned for other reasons. I really wish the mods at least sent a notification that you were shadowbanned at all with the reason; it would clarify things so much better. I was personally shadowbanned when I made a new account, but I believe the reason was because I posted a link (to Imgur) in my first post. I emailed the mods and they fixed it for me, but only because I noticed my post wasn't visible after logging out. To be clear I still don't know the exact reason, but it was apparently made in error.
- eindiran 6y ago
  That defeats the entire point of shadowbanning someone. Shadowbanning is used primarily _because_ it is opaque to the person who is banned. If you told them, they might then make a new account, rather than thinking that people aren't engaging with them and moving on. If you give them a notification that they have been banned and why in the interest of transparency, its no longer a shadowban.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Or, maybe the first ban shouldn't be a permanent shadowban. Maybe actually telling people what they're doing wrong would get them to not do it. There is, in fact, research showing that this is how it works on Reddit: users who get told why they're being banned or their post removed go on to be better contributors than those who don't. I can dig up the paper if you're interested, but I don't have it on hand.
    - eindiran 6y ago
      I 100% agree, and think that in general shadowbans are a gross idea. But my point is that if you send out info about why you banned someone, then you are explicitly not shadowbanning them, by definition. The whole concept of a shadowban is that it must be opaque to the person being banned; if you change that then you aren't shadowbanning them. Personally, I think that moderation transparency is a noble goal: I'd be in favor of all forums keeping explicit, public moderation logs with all moderator actions. But then again I have never had to moderate a particularly large forum, so perhaps my opinion would change when forced to deal with the same spammers, day after day.

dang 6y ago

> I literally got shadowbanned for criticizing Rust when I first became a member on HN. That can't be true. We couldn't care less whether people criticize Rust.

pmiller2 6y ago
I've seen accounts with green usernames that seem to have been shadowbanned for less. Typically, it's a new account that says some reasonable things, and maybe one or two fairly unreasonable things. Getting flagged for the unreasonable things can really kill a brand new account with under 10 karma.
- dang 6y ago
  "Seem to have been shadowbanned for less" than...criticizing Rust? come on you guys. That's not even close. Perhaps you saw an account that was affected by a software filter, especially if it's new. We try to review the affected posts and immunize legit accounts against the software, but we miss some. > Typically, it's a new account that says some reasonable things, and maybe one or two fairly unreasonable things. Accounts get banned for the worst things they do, not the best. If one day I go get groceries, walk the dog, and set somebody's house on fire, "the majority of things I did were reasonable" is not much of a defense. It's hard to speak in the general case though. People routinely overinterpret what they see based on what they assume is happening. If you haven't specifically asked and we haven't specifically answered, the explanation is probably wrong. It's not hard to get an answer if you try.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Yes, "seem to," as in, I have no idea why, because nobody tells me and it's not publicized anywhere how shadowbanning works. > Accounts get banned for the worst things they do, not the best. Suppose one day I go get groceries, walk the dog, and set somebody's house on fire. It's not a defense that the majority of things I did were reasonable. I'm not talking about "set someone's house on fire" though. I'm talking about a comment that triggers a handful of people to mash the downvote or flag link. Specifically, this account: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=rbecker https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=rbecker which, obviously someone else noticed as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585354 That user's subsequent comments have not been great, but, at the time that I encountered them, they had something like 10 karma. Note how I wasn't the only one who couldn't figure out why they were shadowbanned?
    - dang 6y ago
      > it's not publicized anywhere how shadowbanning works https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20shadowban&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... The account you mentioned isn't banned, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. It has, however, shown signs of being an ideological battle account—quite distinctive signs in fact—and I've already warned it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23665090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23665090. New accounts that have come here to use HN in the intended spirit don't typically post exclusively about racial statistics, immigration, China, why lynchings were not as commonplace as people suppose, and similar things for their first 52 comments. Could it be that that is just a random streak and a wave of intellectual curiosity is about to come? Sure. But at some point, if it walks like a duck, we ban it.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        So, you're saying that both bans and shadowbans are manual interventions? I did not have that impression regarding shadowbans. What I, and the comment I linked to earlier saw was a combination of green username (new account) and every comment after a certain point marked as [dead]. If that's not "shadowbanned," I don't know what it is. This user also seems to attract downvotes to fairly reasonable comments for some unknown reason. That said, yes, this user has some questionable comments, most of which seem to have come after the point where I initially noticed. I don't see any reason why posting about racial statistics, China, immigration, and lynchings is a big red flag, especially the way 2020's been going so far. It is certainly easier to troll on these subjects than it is about how much Rust sucks, but, in isolation, I'd call this a chartreuse flag, at best. I do agree with you about your assessment of this user's current comment history, however.

nonbirithm 6y ago

It's possible you could have been shadowbanned for other reasons. I really wish the mods at least sent a notification that you were shadowbanned at all with the reason; it would clarify things so much better. I was personally shadowbanned when I made a new account, but I believe the reason was because I posted a link (to Imgur) in my first post. I emailed the mods and they fixed it for me, but only because I noticed my post wasn't visible after logging out. To be clear I still don't know the exact reason, but it was apparently made in error.

eindiran 6y ago
That defeats the entire point of shadowbanning someone. Shadowbanning is used primarily _because_ it is opaque to the person who is banned. If you told them, they might then make a new account, rather than thinking that people aren't engaging with them and moving on. If you give them a notification that they have been banned and why in the interest of transparency, its no longer a shadowban.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Or, maybe the first ban shouldn't be a permanent shadowban. Maybe actually telling people what they're doing wrong would get them to not do it. There is, in fact, research showing that this is how it works on Reddit: users who get told why they're being banned or their post removed go on to be better contributors than those who don't. I can dig up the paper if you're interested, but I don't have it on hand.
  - eindiran 6y ago
    I 100% agree, and think that in general shadowbans are a gross idea. But my point is that if you send out info about why you banned someone, then you are explicitly not shadowbanning them, by definition. The whole concept of a shadowban is that it must be opaque to the person being banned; if you change that then you aren't shadowbanning them. Personally, I think that moderation transparency is a noble goal: I'd be in favor of all forums keeping explicit, public moderation logs with all moderator actions. But then again I have never had to moderate a particularly large forum, so perhaps my opinion would change when forced to deal with the same spammers, day after day.