4 ms·

> I'm of the view that users subjected to an outright shadow ban should at least have a civil cause of action available for all the time they unnecessarily wast

by rhaksw 4y ago

> I'm of the view that users subjected to an outright shadow ban should at least have a civil cause of action available for all the time they unnecessarily wasted writing comments that no one else will ever see. And for shadow removed comments too? Because that's the majority of it, and slicing and dicing what stays up versus what is secreted away makes it much harder for users to discover that shadow moderation is happening. I don't think it will work. As mentioned elsewhere [1], the government (as an entity, not a particular political party) would love to be your savior here. If they get to pick and choose who wins they will end up controlling social media. They're not going to be able to handle all of the shadow removals or demotions that occur; heck, shadow moderation has been occurring since the dawn of social media and society is hardly aware of it now 16 years later. So, since they couldn't handle all those cases, they'd have to be selective, and that is just more cronyism. No, we need citizen-built transparency systems starting ASAP. Nobody will help us better than ourselves [2]. > There are a few cases where I can almost see it as justified-- not spam as its trivial for spammers to automate detection of-- but certain kind of obsessive mentally ill-people that will forever shout their abusive and disruptive comments into the void if shadowbanned but get a new account if they are informed. But that fringe case just can't justify the abuse against more reasonable people, particular in a world where users are frequently actioned against in error. Yes, exactly. It's a fringe case that we know will come up, and it will be annoying but it won't destroy society as we know it, whereas the systems as built today are doing exactly that. The good part is, it's an easy win. Tell people about it, get people to talk and write about it, and show people who work at social media companies that we don't like or want systems that are driven by shadow moderation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33480576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33480576 [2] https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=1571 https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=1571

nullc 4y ago
> And for shadow removed comments too? Yeah, I think that line of thinking really only works well for outright shadowbans, not singular shadow removal. Single removals might have been justified, and the time people spend on further comments might not actually be wasted (because they might not be removed). That said-- getting rid of outright shadowbans would be a useful step forward and establish a norm against shadow moderation more generally. Re: government-- I did say civil cause of action for a reason: The argument there would go "you intentionally deceived me by making me think my comments were visible, when they never would be-- and in doing so caused me to waste a lot of resources, I'm entitled to recover from my losses". No new law would be required. And the moderation being correct or not isn't the concern-- just the fundamental dishonesty of shadow banning. (though, ironically, outright spammers might have an easier time making the legal argument because they'd be more able to show monetary damages). But as you note, the single comment removals are more common and more insidious, so perhaps its just a distraction. I am tremendously grateful for reveddit, and I think it's made a contribution to better the world. But I'm also not sure how far we can get with awareness. Even after all this time the whole subject can't even come up without people constantly repeating the false claim that subreddit mods can't shadow ban users (or their comments)! But don't see anything better to do right now-- so education it is!
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > And the moderation being correct or not isn't the concern-- just the fundamental dishonesty of shadow banning. Exactly. The dishonesty is the part that bugs me. > (though, ironically, outright spammers might have an easier time making the legal argument because they'd be more able to show monetary damages). Right. For me, even if you could show that everyone had monetary damages, I'm not sure society comes out on top, because then there's also shadow demotion. How do you show that? Being the top item vs. the second item in a list makes a huge difference in terms of visitors. IMO we need to build systems that hold today's popular social media sites accountable on a regular basis. Accept that shadow moderation is part of today's systems and just start building tools that can counter it with information. If we need to build them ad-hoc once in awhile, or somehow be "on alert" for when the problem inevitably crops up again, I'm not sure that works as well as always having the problem somewhat at hand. In the free speech world there's the concept of Mill's "dead dogma", > However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth. [1] That's from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. > I am tremendously grateful for reveddit, and I think it's made a contribution to better the world. But I'm also not sure how far we can get with awareness. Even after all this time the whole subject can't even come up without people constantly repeating the false claim that subreddit mods can't shadow ban users (or their comments)! Haha, I consider such folks paid to say so. It makes no sense, right? Some of these messages get repeated over and over as if they're the covers on TPS reports. We're close to getting real publicity about it. I had an hour long conversation with a journalist a few months ago but I think they decided not to do the story. Regardless, people can see that transparency is needed, and they know that people are somehow becoming fanatics because of social media across all sorts of issues. They're nervous about showing their ideological opponents what gets removed, so they're not ready to take that step. We just need to help them see it's the right thing to do. Internet forums should be a little bit ugly like the real world. To the extent they're more pristine, you're just putting off that problem until the real world. We can "make the internet experimental again", or whatever. > But don't see anything better to do right now-- so education it is! Yeah! That's where I'm at. Happy to meet someone of the same mindset. Gotta catch some Zzz's now, thanks for your comments. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm

by rhaksw 4y ago

nullc 4y ago

> And for shadow removed comments too? Yeah, I think that line of thinking really only works well for outright shadowbans, not singular shadow removal. Single removals might have been justified, and the time people spend on further comments might not actually be wasted (because they might not be removed). That said-- getting rid of outright shadowbans would be a useful step forward and establish a norm against shadow moderation more generally. Re: government-- I did say civil cause of action for a reason: The argument there would go "you intentionally deceived me by making me think my comments were visible, when they never would be-- and in doing so caused me to waste a lot of resources, I'm entitled to recover from my losses". No new law would be required. And the moderation being correct or not isn't the concern-- just the fundamental dishonesty of shadow banning. (though, ironically, outright spammers might have an easier time making the legal argument because they'd be more able to show monetary damages). But as you note, the single comment removals are more common and more insidious, so perhaps its just a distraction. I am tremendously grateful for reveddit, and I think it's made a contribution to better the world. But I'm also not sure how far we can get with awareness. Even after all this time the whole subject can't even come up without people constantly repeating the false claim that subreddit mods can't shadow ban users (or their comments)! But don't see anything better to do right now-- so education it is!

rhaksw 4y ago
> And the moderation being correct or not isn't the concern-- just the fundamental dishonesty of shadow banning. Exactly. The dishonesty is the part that bugs me. > (though, ironically, outright spammers might have an easier time making the legal argument because they'd be more able to show monetary damages). Right. For me, even if you could show that everyone had monetary damages, I'm not sure society comes out on top, because then there's also shadow demotion. How do you show that? Being the top item vs. the second item in a list makes a huge difference in terms of visitors. IMO we need to build systems that hold today's popular social media sites accountable on a regular basis. Accept that shadow moderation is part of today's systems and just start building tools that can counter it with information. If we need to build them ad-hoc once in awhile, or somehow be "on alert" for when the problem inevitably crops up again, I'm not sure that works as well as always having the problem somewhat at hand. In the free speech world there's the concept of Mill's "dead dogma", > However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth. [1] That's from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. > I am tremendously grateful for reveddit, and I think it's made a contribution to better the world. But I'm also not sure how far we can get with awareness. Even after all this time the whole subject can't even come up without people constantly repeating the false claim that subreddit mods can't shadow ban users (or their comments)! Haha, I consider such folks paid to say so. It makes no sense, right? Some of these messages get repeated over and over as if they're the covers on TPS reports. We're close to getting real publicity about it. I had an hour long conversation with a journalist a few months ago but I think they decided not to do the story. Regardless, people can see that transparency is needed, and they know that people are somehow becoming fanatics because of social media across all sorts of issues. They're nervous about showing their ideological opponents what gets removed, so they're not ready to take that step. We just need to help them see it's the right thing to do. Internet forums should be a little bit ugly like the real world. To the extent they're more pristine, you're just putting off that problem until the real world. We can "make the internet experimental again", or whatever. > But don't see anything better to do right now-- so education it is! Yeah! That's where I'm at. Happy to meet someone of the same mindset. Gotta catch some Zzz's now, thanks for your comments. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm