4 ms·

> "Transparently" has major issues for dealing with bad actors So I've been told. What I haven't been told is how telling a spammer that they were banned for s

> "Transparently" has major issues for dealing with bad actors So I've been told. What I haven't been told is how telling a spammer that they were banned for spamming (instead of the opaque "breaking terms of service") helps them evade detection in the future. They already know they were spamming, and can be 99% sure that's what they were banned for. It's only the innocent that don't know what they did wrong.

hiptobecubic 4y ago
Because people want to know why they were considered to be spamming. Then next time they will make sure not to do it that way.
- AinderS 4y ago
  > Because people want to know why they were considered to be spamming. You're arguing against a suggestion no-one has made. I'm proposing to tell them what they did wrong, not how they were caught.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    I've dealt with moderation before. The immediate response is something like "I wasn't spamming." or "Prove it." Basically, just saying "you're banned for spamming" is the same as saying "you're banned" - both spammers and unfairly banned people will follow the same path from there.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    Presumably the point is that the spammer operates many identities and can systematically determine details about the spam detection system by observing which of their identities get banned.
semanticist 4y ago
To really do anything, you'd need to know which specific emails/interactions broke the rules, which would give people trying to find the very edge of acceptability useful information. "You're being TOS'd because your email titled 'Foo' on the 3rd of July breaks our spamming rules" tells you that your email titled 'Bar' on the 2nd didn't, and you know what you did differently between them and now you know how far you can push before being caught. It's a bad situation - ideally good actors could get useful feedback to help avoid accidentally crossing a line, but bad actors will absolutely abuse any kind of margin thy can find.

hiptobecubic 4y ago

Because people want to know why they were considered to be spamming. Then next time they will make sure not to do it that way.

AinderS 4y ago
> Because people want to know why they were considered to be spamming. You're arguing against a suggestion no-one has made. I'm proposing to tell them what they did wrong, not how they were caught.
- viraptor 4y ago
  I've dealt with moderation before. The immediate response is something like "I wasn't spamming." or "Prove it." Basically, just saying "you're banned for spamming" is the same as saying "you're banned" - both spammers and unfairly banned people will follow the same path from there.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Presumably the point is that the spammer operates many identities and can systematically determine details about the spam detection system by observing which of their identities get banned.

semanticist 4y ago

To really do anything, you'd need to know which specific emails/interactions broke the rules, which would give people trying to find the very edge of acceptability useful information. "You're being TOS'd because your email titled 'Foo' on the 3rd of July breaks our spamming rules" tells you that your email titled 'Bar' on the 2nd didn't, and you know what you did differently between them and now you know how far you can push before being caught. It's a bad situation - ideally good actors could get useful feedback to help avoid accidentally crossing a line, but bad actors will absolutely abuse any kind of margin thy can find.