6 ms·
> It's deceit, but in a similar category of deceit to telling a user the resource is 404 not found instead of 403 or 401 because you don't even trust them enoug
by rapnie 5y ago
> It's deceit, but in a similar category of deceit to telling a user the resource is 404 not found instead of 403 or 401 because you don't even trust them enough
Is it the same? Showing a 404 is a security measure that applies equally to anyone lacking sufficient privileges. Ideally an app should prevent you from getting these, or show a message like "Not found, or no access".
> It's deceit with the purpose of stymiing further malicious action.
Shadowbans are powerful moderation weapons. Too much so, I'd say. The moderator is both prosecutor, judge and executioner. Who is the lawyer? Who revises after a time if the shadowbanned person has redeemed themself? Maybe their bad behavior was just a temporary fit, or even a mental breakdown they have since recovered from. Or they just become wiser grown-ups over time. All very human things that happen, but now they have a harsh sentence applied to them, and they may not even know about it.
Especially at scale these things should be handled properly. And importantly there should be transparency of how the procedures work, what the status is, and what one can do about it.
I also wonder to what degree on the big social platforms there exist even more subtle measures than all-out shadowbans. Like setting metrics on a sliding scale to define the extent the AI should limit a person's influence on the network.
Maybe this already has a name, but let's call it "shadow suppression". With such measures in place a person's voice can be dimimished for a lifetime without them ever knowing. They get a Like or a Comment here and there, but they will never go viral or even reach the audience that they think they address, and no matter how good their content and behavior becomes.
- shadowgovt 5y agoThere are very online fora I am aware of that have any kind of arbitration or check on the execution of administrator or moderator authority. Facebook is one (which is why they will be reinstating Trump's account in the future: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/06/facebook-response-to-oversight-board-recommendations-trump/ https://about.fb.com/news/2021/06/facebook-response-to-overs...).
- rapnie 5y agoYes, but that example refers to a very high profile account. I wonder if the average person will get the same amount of attention (or at least a reasonable amount) in similar cases. Also this refers to a very noticable account suspension, not a shadowban that may stay under the radar.
- michaelmrose 5y agoNormally you don't get any of that process because you don't have any right to use someone else's service. They can ban you for having red hair or blue eyes if they please and they would be foolish but not in the wrong.
- rapnie 5y agoSure, but scale that lack of rights to platforms will millions or billions of users, and you get effective dictatorship. Platforms just wielding too much power that extends well beyond their walled garden, impacting society as a whole. The question is often raised if e.g. FB should be considered a utility service, and have their policies tightly regulated. Edit: I submitted a separate Ask HN on "shadow suppression": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28344492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28344492
- shadowgovt 5y agoIt's an odd dictatorship that someone voluntarily submits to. Being out of Facebook's decisions on what you may say is as simple as closing your account.
- tekknik 5y agoPeople’s desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights. Pay attention to history and this is pretty apparent.
- shadowgovt 5y agoIt's a bit of a catch-22 though, isn't it? If people can make sound independent judgment, we don't need a law constraining what private companies must allow on their services because private users will find the censorship reprehensible and will voluntarily leave. We need the First Amendment to constrain what government can do because people cannot voluntarily leave a government; the same is not true for their Facebook account. And if people cannot make sound independent judgment, and their desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights... How can we trust them with the freedom to say and hear unfiltered information? The first demagogue who comes along and convinces them they must do what he says or they don't fit in will have the whole user base in their power, right? In such a context, it is perhaps necessary to allow the media its freedom of the press to transmit what is true and refrain from transmitting what is false.