4 ms·

This "feature" of Reddit has always really bothered me. Who is Reddit helping when a user's comment is removed but they're tricked into thinking it's still up?

beebeepka 5y ago
I know this is likely a rhetorical question but since you asked: it benefits whoever controls the narrative
- npteljes 5y ago
  And it preserves the integrity of the community at a larger scale.
  - beebeepka 5y ago
    How exactly? It's not like the only other option is "always assume bad faith". Since reality is a bit more complex, I think such things should be decided on a case by case basis. I've seen plenty of both extremes here on HN, and tons of unknowns
    - npteljes 5y ago
      By being an effective moderation tool. I like shadowbanning more than a simple ban, because I think it works better by not giving the bad actor an instant response. They can't use the feedback for further bad action, creating a sense of confusion, or being ignored. And then if we suppose that it works well, then with other useful tools in the moderators' bag of tricks, they can do a good job keeping a community's discussion above a certain level, thereby benefiting the community at a larger scale. I'm sure that if used in bad faith, it can be used to control a narrative, but in this regard it doesn't do a better job than other moderation tools, like editing a comment or banning users.
bittercynic 5y ago
If the user could tell they were banned they might be quicker to create a new account and continue the behavior they were banned for. I get the practicality of it, but still think it's a pretty nasty thing to do. Even to a troll.
- XorNot 5y ago
  HN has shadow ban functionality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26940481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26940481
rhaksw 5y ago
Good question. Research suggests providing removal explanations [on posts] results in less work for mods [1]. And more research into reddit moderation is on the way [2]. The first time silent removals were discussed on reddit was apparently in 2007, > "A better idea is a silent ban. Let him post comments" [3] (found via [3.a]) In 2010 reddit's CTO said he supports silent bans [4] after a blogger discovered they had been silently banned. And the CEO in 2017 said it was necessary [5], then in 2018 said, > If we knew everything everything we know today about spam, enforcement, and transparency, we probably wouldn’t build shadow-banning. It’s use is really limited to spam, and I think the downsides (false positives, lack of transparency) outweigh the benefits. > That said, it was useful in the early days when spam was more of an arms race, we didn’t have moderators or reporting, and our content policy was limited to spam. [6] [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/duwdco/should_moderators_provide_removal_explanations/f79o1yr/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/duwdco/should_mode... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/tk7xl1/meta_collaboration_with_uiucsocialspaces/ https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/tk7xl1/meta_c... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20070604141333/http://reddit.com/info/1vcyp/comments https://web.archive.org/web/20070604141333/http://reddit.com... [3.a] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20647592#20650370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20647592#20650370 [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/bbc58/silently_banned_from_reddit/c0lyada/?context=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/bbc58/silently_... [5] https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/5q4qmg/out_with_2016_in_with_2017/dcwclze/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/5q4qmg/out_w... [6] https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/8k5qh3/if_you_created_a_reddittype_website_would_you/dz52mbb/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/8k5qh3/if_y...
npteljes 5y ago
It's a tactic against spammers and trolls. It's believed that they are not as likely to continue the behavior as they would if they saw the immediate consequence of their actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning

beebeepka 5y ago

I know this is likely a rhetorical question but since you asked: it benefits whoever controls the narrative

npteljes 5y ago
And it preserves the integrity of the community at a larger scale.
- beebeepka 5y ago
  How exactly? It's not like the only other option is "always assume bad faith". Since reality is a bit more complex, I think such things should be decided on a case by case basis. I've seen plenty of both extremes here on HN, and tons of unknowns
  - npteljes 5y ago
    By being an effective moderation tool. I like shadowbanning more than a simple ban, because I think it works better by not giving the bad actor an instant response. They can't use the feedback for further bad action, creating a sense of confusion, or being ignored. And then if we suppose that it works well, then with other useful tools in the moderators' bag of tricks, they can do a good job keeping a community's discussion above a certain level, thereby benefiting the community at a larger scale. I'm sure that if used in bad faith, it can be used to control a narrative, but in this regard it doesn't do a better job than other moderation tools, like editing a comment or banning users.

bittercynic 5y ago

If the user could tell they were banned they might be quicker to create a new account and continue the behavior they were banned for. I get the practicality of it, but still think it's a pretty nasty thing to do. Even to a troll.

XorNot 5y ago
HN has shadow ban functionality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26940481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26940481

rhaksw 5y ago

Good question. Research suggests providing removal explanations [on posts] results in less work for mods [1]. And more research into reddit moderation is on the way [2]. The first time silent removals were discussed on reddit was apparently in 2007, > "A better idea is a silent ban. Let him post comments" [3] (found via [3.a]) In 2010 reddit's CTO said he supports silent bans [4] after a blogger discovered they had been silently banned. And the CEO in 2017 said it was necessary [5], then in 2018 said, > If we knew everything everything we know today about spam, enforcement, and transparency, we probably wouldn’t build shadow-banning. It’s use is really limited to spam, and I think the downsides (false positives, lack of transparency) outweigh the benefits. > That said, it was useful in the early days when spam was more of an arms race, we didn’t have moderators or reporting, and our content policy was limited to spam. [6] [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/duwdco/should_moderators_provide_removal_explanations/f79o1yr/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/duwdco/should_mode... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/tk7xl1/meta_collaboration_with_uiucsocialspaces/ https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/tk7xl1/meta_c... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20070604141333/http://reddit.com/info/1vcyp/comments https://web.archive.org/web/20070604141333/http://reddit.com... [3.a] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20647592#20650370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20647592#20650370 [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/bbc58/silently_banned_from_reddit/c0lyada/?context=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/bbc58/silently_... [5] https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/5q4qmg/out_with_2016_in_with_2017/dcwclze/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/5q4qmg/out_w... [6] https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/8k5qh3/if_you_created_a_reddittype_website_would_you/dz52mbb/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/8k5qh3/if_y...

npteljes 5y ago

It's a tactic against spammers and trolls. It's believed that they are not as likely to continue the behavior as they would if they saw the immediate consequence of their actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning