6 ms·

> How is it not? Shadowbans by definition are deceptive The question is not whether it's deceptive, but whether "it has a disastrous effect on the forum or com

> How is it not? Shadowbans by definition are deceptive The question is not whether it's deceptive, but whether "it has a disastrous effect on the forum or community". It is deceptive. Does it have a disastrous effect on the community? It doesn't appear so to me, so I think that needs supporting evidence. > May I ask -was it your intent to come off as being condescending and borderline insulting? If not, you ought to be aware that is how that sentence came off. How a sentence is interpreted has a lot to do with the context the person reading it is in. I didn't intend to be dismissive, but I think the point still stands, because I was actually trying to make a point. Why not just use one of the sites that doesn't do shadowbanning or censorship instead? This isn't some sly insinuation you should leave. It's an actual question about what is different here from there in the rules and moderation, and how and why that might contribute to how the community acts at each place respectively. > It's also a hand-wave -meaning a distraction from my primary point which is about shadowbanning and the fact it injects a note of deceit into the moderator/user relationship. No, it's a real question that you decided wasn't relevant so then went out of your way to avoid. > but that does not change the fact ...and it is a fact... that I believe (and have no reason not to believe) that shadowbans have a negative effect on the larger community that they're practiced on. It hasn't been shown to be a fact. You haven't even really shown how it could be negative to the community, much less provided evidence. "It erodes faith" is both unsubstantiated, and it's also not shown even if it was how that actually results in a problem (I'm not sure there don't exist forums with hated moderators that still function fairly well). Shadowbanning is censorship and it is deceitful, but it's also aimed squarely at those the moderators think are not part of the community, or at least not productive parts. The whole point of it is to keep those people from realizing their account is banned right away and starting a new account to continue the behavior. I would argue that for the most part, this has a positive effect. There are plenty of dead posts which you can see too if you want which provide little or no useful contribution to the discussion or the community. > shadowbans undermine posters' faith in moderators and serve to undermine the credibility of moderation as a whole. I haven't observed that. I think most people here trust the moderators to use that sparingly, and there's also a system which appears to let the community see and reverse shadowbans in the case it's incorrectly applied or the banned person in question provides more meaningful content later.

MisterMower 5y ago
Most people aren’t aware that shadowbanning occurs, how it is used, and to what extent. By very definition they don’t see shadowbanned comments or content. I’m not sure how you can think people approve of something they aren’t even aware is happening. It’s not just deceptive to the shadowbanned user, it’s deceptive to the whole community, too. How can an average user trust that the content they’re viewing isn’t entirely astroturfed? Or alternatively, 100% organic?
- kbenson 5y ago
  > I’m not sure how you can think people approve of something they aren’t even aware is happening. Because people often trust people based on reputation, results, or other proxy measures rather than reviewing every action they take. > It’s not just deceptive to the shadowbanned user, it’s deceptive to the whole community, too. It is. At the same time I think most people don't care, and are fine not having every moderation action announced to them. Additionally, as I've stated multiple times here, and so have others, HN allows anyone to opt into seeing these comments from shadowbanned users, so HN doesn't even follow the same ideal of the problem case you and others are putting forth. You'll get a lot farther pushing this idea of shadowbanning being bad and a problem if you actually respond to the reality of the situation you're arguing about here, and the counter-arguments being put forth, rather than just blindly repeating the same thing. > How can an average user trust that the content they’re viewing isn’t entirely astroturfed? Or alternatively, 100% organic? How is that anything to do with shadowbanning or moderation? That's a problem entirely separate and that shadowbanning and moderation of the type we're discussing has nothing to do with. But, if you really want an asnwer to this ridiculous question, it's that you can go into your profile here, find the "showdead" option, turn it on, and then you'll see all the comments you're complaining are hidden and deceptive and hidden from all the users. And if you don't trust this is all the dead comments, you can't really trust the moderators at all (and there's no more or less trust than any other site which says they do or don't do something).
  - MisterMower 5y ago
    For the record, I’m not talking about HN, I’m referring to Facebook and Reddit particularly. HN handles this issue better than many platforms. Apologies if that wasn’t clear. So users are okay with being deceived and ultimately don’t care? Let me know if I’ve misunderstood your argument. That may be true. And knowing human nature you may be right. I disagree that it’s a morally acceptable way to moderate a community or forum, though. People lose trust when they find they’ve been shadowbanned, or discover that the practice is used. They rightfully understand that the discourse is being manipulated in an underhanded, opaque way.

MisterMower 5y ago

Most people aren’t aware that shadowbanning occurs, how it is used, and to what extent. By very definition they don’t see shadowbanned comments or content. I’m not sure how you can think people approve of something they aren’t even aware is happening. It’s not just deceptive to the shadowbanned user, it’s deceptive to the whole community, too. How can an average user trust that the content they’re viewing isn’t entirely astroturfed? Or alternatively, 100% organic?

kbenson 5y ago
> I’m not sure how you can think people approve of something they aren’t even aware is happening. Because people often trust people based on reputation, results, or other proxy measures rather than reviewing every action they take. > It’s not just deceptive to the shadowbanned user, it’s deceptive to the whole community, too. It is. At the same time I think most people don't care, and are fine not having every moderation action announced to them. Additionally, as I've stated multiple times here, and so have others, HN allows anyone to opt into seeing these comments from shadowbanned users, so HN doesn't even follow the same ideal of the problem case you and others are putting forth. You'll get a lot farther pushing this idea of shadowbanning being bad and a problem if you actually respond to the reality of the situation you're arguing about here, and the counter-arguments being put forth, rather than just blindly repeating the same thing. > How can an average user trust that the content they’re viewing isn’t entirely astroturfed? Or alternatively, 100% organic? How is that anything to do with shadowbanning or moderation? That's a problem entirely separate and that shadowbanning and moderation of the type we're discussing has nothing to do with. But, if you really want an asnwer to this ridiculous question, it's that you can go into your profile here, find the "showdead" option, turn it on, and then you'll see all the comments you're complaining are hidden and deceptive and hidden from all the users. And if you don't trust this is all the dead comments, you can't really trust the moderators at all (and there's no more or less trust than any other site which says they do or don't do something).
- MisterMower 5y ago
  For the record, I’m not talking about HN, I’m referring to Facebook and Reddit particularly. HN handles this issue better than many platforms. Apologies if that wasn’t clear. So users are okay with being deceived and ultimately don’t care? Let me know if I’ve misunderstood your argument. That may be true. And knowing human nature you may be right. I disagree that it’s a morally acceptable way to moderate a community or forum, though. People lose trust when they find they’ve been shadowbanned, or discover that the practice is used. They rightfully understand that the discourse is being manipulated in an underhanded, opaque way.