3 ms·

Analyzing HN moderation and censorship (2017)

18 points by tmfi 5y ago

meibo 5y ago
I assume this might be in response to Linus' vaccine post from yesterday? It received a crazy amount of votes in its first half hour(almost 500) and then just suddenly disappeared from the main news listing without being flagged or dead. No comment from HN staff either as far as I can see. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27466374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27466374
travelhead 5y ago
This is an important topic since HN appears to be a news site that uses social up/down voting, but really is a highly moderated platform, where moderators have full power to censor and shadow ban for any reason without any transparency. I was shadow banned for my submission about Amazon’s power over my small Amazon business, an important topic in which I received national media attention from NBC, former editors of Vice News, etc. However, an HN moderator did not like the article, so he shadow banned me. I understand there are cases for shadow banning, such as trolls, spam accounts etc, but my submission was a highly significant news worthy article that received national media attention, that did not deserve this treatment due to one HN moderators opinion. HN lacks moderator transparency. Readers believe they are being shown a curated list of relevant news from their peers, but really are just seeing the topics and views that closely align with HN moderators opinions.
- throwawayalso 5y ago
  my posts were also recently banned (0% of the time showing up when submitted now - and am playing by rules now + something quite unique & useful in a niche space) know that’s not necessarily a HN site guideline req., but when you censor premature, you sometimes kill sincere & nascent attempts at innovation (especially when really not too big on SM) in essence: “too bad” is the sentiment. (won’t participate now?) sometimes feels like when you want to have a discussion, even here, haters jump on and attack while missing Big Picture of what could be There is probs no more local / friendly zone of “super - smarties” than the folks on HN and it’s too bad when peeps attack or “no second-chances” censored for, in the scheme of things, minor infractions, instead allowing / offering chance for growth + the innovative-kind of-discourse that seems sometimes here is owed here / could be (at least moreso than arguing or just casual convo) also, not saying Dang & crew have an easy job keeping Quality up & don’t know what they go through daily obvi (HN really is one of the greatest imo) but it sucks when you’re learning & creating & not perfect on site guidelines Everyone’s loss when you’re banned on a platform that could help build a better future
tinus_hn 5y ago
It has been shown time and again that these conspiracies turn out to be big nothingburgers. The moderators deserve to be taken in good faith. Be aware that if you think something’s off you can also just email the moderators first! They tend to respond quite quickly.
- travelhead 5y ago
  Instead of a vague comment, why not read the article or respond to the specific accusations outlined on the thread? Here’s a concrete example from two of my posts. My first submission received 511 points with 267 comments and was on the front page of HN and received national news attention. This clearly shows interest from HN about Amazon’s power against small Amazon sellers. My next post was shadow banned by Dang and was wiped off the submission page within a few minutes, without even a chance to be downvoted or upvoted by my peers. The HN moderators have too much power and control, especially in regardless to lack of transparency and arbitrary opinions on who to shadow ban. 1. Delisted on Amazon – “Defective Product” with 6 complaints of 5164 sold in 2021 (travelhead.medium.com) 1 point by travelhead 3 months ago | past 2. Amazon competitor got our belt listing taken down by saying it contains drugs (travelhead.medium.com) 511 points by travelhead 4 months ago | past |
  - gus_massa 5y ago
    My guess is that the second article is too similar to the first one. (It's not the same case, it's about a similar problem you had with Amazon, but it's similar.) It's strange it's [dead]. I'd expect it to had a manual penalty to avoid repetition, but I don't expect it to be [dead]. > However, an HN moderator did not like the article, so he shadow banned me. Did they shadowban your account? Or your website? Or only killed the post? Do you see the post as [dead]? Looking at your submissions and comments history, the last post are all about your sites. There is no hard rule against that here, but it may trigger some of the automated antispam or an error by a moderator. Have you asked by mail about that case?
    - travelhead 5y ago

18 points by tmfi 5y ago

I assume this might be in response to Linus' vaccine post from yesterday? It received a crazy amount of votes in its first half hour(almost 500) and then just suddenly disappeared from the main news listing without being flagged or dead. No comment from HN staff either as far as I can see. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27466374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27466374

travelhead 5y ago

This is an important topic since HN appears to be a news site that uses social up/down voting, but really is a highly moderated platform, where moderators have full power to censor and shadow ban for any reason without any transparency. I was shadow banned for my submission about Amazon’s power over my small Amazon business, an important topic in which I received national media attention from NBC, former editors of Vice News, etc. However, an HN moderator did not like the article, so he shadow banned me. I understand there are cases for shadow banning, such as trolls, spam accounts etc, but my submission was a highly significant news worthy article that received national media attention, that did not deserve this treatment due to one HN moderators opinion. HN lacks moderator transparency. Readers believe they are being shown a curated list of relevant news from their peers, but really are just seeing the topics and views that closely align with HN moderators opinions.

throwawayalso 5y ago
my posts were also recently banned (0% of the time showing up when submitted now - and am playing by rules now + something quite unique & useful in a niche space) know that’s not necessarily a HN site guideline req., but when you censor premature, you sometimes kill sincere & nascent attempts at innovation (especially when really not too big on SM) in essence: “too bad” is the sentiment. (won’t participate now?) sometimes feels like when you want to have a discussion, even here, haters jump on and attack while missing Big Picture of what could be There is probs no more local / friendly zone of “super - smarties” than the folks on HN and it’s too bad when peeps attack or “no second-chances” censored for, in the scheme of things, minor infractions, instead allowing / offering chance for growth + the innovative-kind of-discourse that seems sometimes here is owed here / could be (at least moreso than arguing or just casual convo) also, not saying Dang & crew have an easy job keeping Quality up & don’t know what they go through daily obvi (HN really is one of the greatest imo) but it sucks when you’re learning & creating & not perfect on site guidelines Everyone’s loss when you’re banned on a platform that could help build a better future

tinus_hn 5y ago

It has been shown time and again that these conspiracies turn out to be big nothingburgers. The moderators deserve to be taken in good faith. Be aware that if you think something’s off you can also just email the moderators first! They tend to respond quite quickly.

travelhead 5y ago
Instead of a vague comment, why not read the article or respond to the specific accusations outlined on the thread? Here’s a concrete example from two of my posts. My first submission received 511 points with 267 comments and was on the front page of HN and received national news attention. This clearly shows interest from HN about Amazon’s power against small Amazon sellers. My next post was shadow banned by Dang and was wiped off the submission page within a few minutes, without even a chance to be downvoted or upvoted by my peers. The HN moderators have too much power and control, especially in regardless to lack of transparency and arbitrary opinions on who to shadow ban. 1. Delisted on Amazon – “Defective Product” with 6 complaints of 5164 sold in 2021 (travelhead.medium.com) 1 point by travelhead 3 months ago | past 2. Amazon competitor got our belt listing taken down by saying it contains drugs (travelhead.medium.com) 511 points by travelhead 4 months ago | past |
- gus_massa 5y ago
  My guess is that the second article is too similar to the first one. (It's not the same case, it's about a similar problem you had with Amazon, but it's similar.) It's strange it's [dead]. I'd expect it to had a manual penalty to avoid repetition, but I don't expect it to be [dead]. > However, an HN moderator did not like the article, so he shadow banned me. Did they shadowban your account? Or your website? Or only killed the post? Do you see the post as [dead]? Looking at your submissions and comments history, the last post are all about your sites. There is no hard rule against that here, but it may trigger some of the automated antispam or an error by a moderator. Have you asked by mail about that case?
  - travelhead 5y ago