5 ms·

>Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Can you explain more, I'm not really seeing it... Also how is disa

>Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Can you explain more, I'm not really seeing it... Also how is disallowing shadowbanning problematic? I always never liked it.

djur 6y ago
What's the legitimate government interest in disallowing shadowbanning?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nkozyra 6y ago
  Well "legitimate" is open for interpretation. I'd say this administration has resonated with its base by treating bans as politically-motivated.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    They are politically motivated. For example, I’ve been banned from Twitter for defending Kyle Rittenhouse, who engaged in lawful self defense against a number of violent assailants. Why? Because the left has decided it serves their interests to paint him as a mass murderer (indeed Facebook has an official policy that he is a mass murderer). Facebook also regularly censors viral pro-trump content and project veritas has exposed this. I wish it weren’t so, but it is. I’ve experienced it firsthand.
    - rat87 6y ago
      I'm guessing that's because "viral pro Trump content" is very frequently xenophobic& racist content, includes calls to violence and is full of conspiracy theories. If a site doesn't moderate that sort of stuff, it frequently goes to shit, I know inadequate moderation on that front had made reddit much much worse. Also this sort of stuff can lead to real world violence like when Facebook let violent vigilantes organize on their site it led to Kyle Rittenhouse killing two people.
    - nkozyra 6y ago
      I've seen a lot of retellings of why someone was banned that end up being a bit generous, particularly if experienced first hand. It's tough to take these at face value because we trust and believe in the things that define our ideology and take any challenge to our presentation of that as an attack on the underlying ideology.
- dannyw 6y ago
  Shadowbans make it harder for users who have been affected to report these outcomes.
- lmm 6y ago
  "To promote free and open discourse online and encourage greater transparency between platforms and users." That seems legitimate to me; the mechanisms of democratic government rely on free speech and the marketplace of ideas existing in practice as well as in theory. If undesirables were not only kept out of the town square, but kept out by a secret system that not even they were told about, that would be obviously damaging to democracy; yet that's what's happening online.
  - vharuck 6y ago
    The "undesirables" can make their own websites, which are totally protected from the government by the First Amendment. The owners of the shadow-banning websites should also have the right to decide what thoughts are exposed on their website. I get to take down any flyers on my fence, even if I leave up the ones I like. Or I can vandalize the ones I dislike, maybe entirely changing their message. My fence.
    - lmm 6y ago
      > The "undesirables" can make their own websites, which are totally protected from the government by the First Amendment. No they're not; the government has already shown itself able and willing to do an end-run around the First Amendment by e.g. pressurising payment processors to refuse to do business with such websites. > The owners of the shadow-banning websites should also have the right to decide what thoughts are exposed on their website. > I get to take down any flyers on my fence, even if I leave up the ones I like. Or I can vandalize the ones I dislike, maybe entirely changing their message. My fence. If you're hosting a private website you can privately decide what goes on it. If you're holding yourself out as a public communications provider and want the benefits of section 230, you're being granted special privileges by society and you need to hold up your end of the bargain by hosting the kind of uncomfortable discussion that society needs.
      - vharuck 6y ago
        >No they're not; the government has already shown itself able and willing to do an end-run around the First Amendment by e.g. pressurising payment processors to refuse to do business with such websites. I cannot see how a change to a law that's proposed by the enforcement arm of government will actually protect people from abuses done by that same enforcement arm. If they act in bad faith now, why assume good faith will follow? >you need to hold up your end of the bargain by hosting the kind of uncomfortable discussion that society needs. I don't think Amazon's user reviews are where uncomfortable discussions need to happen. But I do think the government demanding what should be discussed on servers owned by private citizens is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
tdrp 6y ago
As a user I don't like it but as an app/website provider, it significantly delays spammers, giving them the illusion that what they're doing is working so they should just maintain the status quo. If instead you outright ban them, they adjust or learn about your anti-spam algorithms and just keep going.
- tomcam 6y ago
  Wonder if one answer would be to move potential spam, etc. to a separate-but-equal area. So if you're in /r/Politics and start advertising your get-rich-quick scheme your post is moved to /r/PoliticsSandbox.
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    That removes the "shadow," unless you present only to the submitter that the content is in the intended space.
intended 6y ago
You could break up moderation issues into 2 types: Type 1: Errors, ignorance, human foibles. Primarily annoying/asshole behavior. Type 2: Malice and malformed content. Spam, propaganda, trolling. I can argue against shadow bans for the first type. For the second type, any evidence of your operational method is a data point to break the moderation barrier and infect/manipulate users. If a spammer knows its been banned, it switches over to another account. If a troll knows where your ban lines are, they come back and stay exactly on the edge to trigger someone or make them fall over the line.

djur 6y ago

What's the legitimate government interest in disallowing shadowbanning?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nkozyra 6y ago
Well "legitimate" is open for interpretation. I'd say this administration has resonated with its base by treating bans as politically-motivated.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  They are politically motivated. For example, I’ve been banned from Twitter for defending Kyle Rittenhouse, who engaged in lawful self defense against a number of violent assailants. Why? Because the left has decided it serves their interests to paint him as a mass murderer (indeed Facebook has an official policy that he is a mass murderer). Facebook also regularly censors viral pro-trump content and project veritas has exposed this. I wish it weren’t so, but it is. I’ve experienced it firsthand.
  - rat87 6y ago
    I'm guessing that's because "viral pro Trump content" is very frequently xenophobic& racist content, includes calls to violence and is full of conspiracy theories. If a site doesn't moderate that sort of stuff, it frequently goes to shit, I know inadequate moderation on that front had made reddit much much worse. Also this sort of stuff can lead to real world violence like when Facebook let violent vigilantes organize on their site it led to Kyle Rittenhouse killing two people.
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    I've seen a lot of retellings of why someone was banned that end up being a bit generous, particularly if experienced first hand. It's tough to take these at face value because we trust and believe in the things that define our ideology and take any challenge to our presentation of that as an attack on the underlying ideology.
dannyw 6y ago
Shadowbans make it harder for users who have been affected to report these outcomes.
lmm 6y ago
"To promote free and open discourse online and encourage greater transparency between platforms and users." That seems legitimate to me; the mechanisms of democratic government rely on free speech and the marketplace of ideas existing in practice as well as in theory. If undesirables were not only kept out of the town square, but kept out by a secret system that not even they were told about, that would be obviously damaging to democracy; yet that's what's happening online.
- vharuck 6y ago
  The "undesirables" can make their own websites, which are totally protected from the government by the First Amendment. The owners of the shadow-banning websites should also have the right to decide what thoughts are exposed on their website. I get to take down any flyers on my fence, even if I leave up the ones I like. Or I can vandalize the ones I dislike, maybe entirely changing their message. My fence.
  - lmm 6y ago
    > The "undesirables" can make their own websites, which are totally protected from the government by the First Amendment. No they're not; the government has already shown itself able and willing to do an end-run around the First Amendment by e.g. pressurising payment processors to refuse to do business with such websites. > The owners of the shadow-banning websites should also have the right to decide what thoughts are exposed on their website. > I get to take down any flyers on my fence, even if I leave up the ones I like. Or I can vandalize the ones I dislike, maybe entirely changing their message. My fence. If you're hosting a private website you can privately decide what goes on it. If you're holding yourself out as a public communications provider and want the benefits of section 230, you're being granted special privileges by society and you need to hold up your end of the bargain by hosting the kind of uncomfortable discussion that society needs.
    - vharuck 6y ago
      >No they're not; the government has already shown itself able and willing to do an end-run around the First Amendment by e.g. pressurising payment processors to refuse to do business with such websites. I cannot see how a change to a law that's proposed by the enforcement arm of government will actually protect people from abuses done by that same enforcement arm. If they act in bad faith now, why assume good faith will follow? >you need to hold up your end of the bargain by hosting the kind of uncomfortable discussion that society needs. I don't think Amazon's user reviews are where uncomfortable discussions need to happen. But I do think the government demanding what should be discussed on servers owned by private citizens is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

tdrp 6y ago

As a user I don't like it but as an app/website provider, it significantly delays spammers, giving them the illusion that what they're doing is working so they should just maintain the status quo. If instead you outright ban them, they adjust or learn about your anti-spam algorithms and just keep going.

tomcam 6y ago
Wonder if one answer would be to move potential spam, etc. to a separate-but-equal area. So if you're in /r/Politics and start advertising your get-rich-quick scheme your post is moved to /r/PoliticsSandbox.
- nkozyra 6y ago
  That removes the "shadow," unless you present only to the submitter that the content is in the intended space.

intended 6y ago

You could break up moderation issues into 2 types: Type 1: Errors, ignorance, human foibles. Primarily annoying/asshole behavior. Type 2: Malice and malformed content. Spam, propaganda, trolling. I can argue against shadow bans for the first type. For the second type, any evidence of your operational method is a data point to break the moderation barrier and infect/manipulate users. If a spammer knows its been banned, it switches over to another account. If a troll knows where your ban lines are, they come back and stay exactly on the edge to trigger someone or make them fall over the line.