3 ms·
The whole concept of shadow banning has always seemed ethically and possibly legally dubious to me. I understand that it is highly effective and I can't think o
by tengbretson 4y ago
The whole concept of shadow banning has always seemed ethically and possibly legally dubious to me. I understand that it is highly effective and I can't think of a more efficient way to lower moderation burden, but it seems to me like it is a violation of an implicit contract.
If a user pays for an online experience (either directly or via interaction with ads) I don't see how the provider is justified in accepting that payment while serving them a counterfeit of the experience they agreed to.
If someone is misbehaving in a restaurant you kick them out. You don't get to take their money and serve them sawdust.
- nh23423fefe 4y agoThis is incoherent. Every site has a TOS which is violated by those who were banned. Imagining a fake 'contract' exists because you viewed ads is 'dubious'
- tengbretson 4y agoI understand you may be ignorant to it, but an implied contract is not a concept I just made up. It is not a stretch at all to view the interactions between a website and a user through the lens of an implied-in-fact contract. If you are interested, here is a good place to start reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract Sites have TOS, and users in violation of the TOS should be banned. This is not the same as a shadowban. I don't believe it is within the rights of a site to secretly claim that a user is in violation of the TOS and then punitively altering the user experience they agreed to without giving them any notice.