5 ms·

Would be nice if the lists were published though with a link to the list from the submission form.

• dang 3y ago
  The problem is that if you publish the lists it leads to more abuses. For example if spammers find out which sites are banned then they just post other ones.
  • mutant_glofish 3y ago
    > For example if spammers find out which sites are banned then they just post other ones. I don't think that makes sense. The supposed spammers can just try looking up whether their submissions show up or not when not logged in.
    • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      That also requires additional effort on the spammers’ part. Increasing cost of attacks is an effective defense strategy.
      • rhaksw 3y ago
        Increasing cost of attacks is effective against good faith people, not spammers. Even Cory Doctorow made this case in "Como is Infosec" [1]. The only problem with Cory's argument is, he points people to the SC Principles [2]. The SCP contain exceptions for not notifying about "spam, phishing or malware." But anything can be considered spam, and transparency-with-exceptions has always been platforms' position. They've always argued they can secretly remove content when it amounts to "spam." Nobody has challenged them on that point. The reality is, platforms that use secretive moderation lend themselves to spammers. [1] https://doctorow.medium.com/como-is-infosec-307f87004563 https://doctorow.medium.com/como-is-infosec-307f87004563 [2] https://santaclaraprinciples.org/ https://santaclaraprinciples.org/
        • em-bee 3y ago
          platforms that use secretive moderation lend themselves to spammers how is that? i can understand it not being useful, but how would it help spammers?
          • rhaksw 3y ago
            Spammers game the system while good-faith users get edged out. Spammers are determined actors who perceive threats everywhere, whereas good-faith users never imagine that a platform would secretly remove their content. Today, you see low quality content on social media, not because the world is dumb, but because the people who get their message out know the secret tricks. Secret suppression is extremely common [1]. Many of today's content moderators say exceptions for shadowbans are needed [2]. They think lying to users promotes reality. That's bologna. [1] https://www.removednews.com/p/hate-online-censorship-its-way-worse https://www.removednews.com/p/hate-online-censorship-its-way... [2] https://twitter.com/rhaksw/status/1689887293002379264 https://twitter.com/rhaksw/status/1689887293002379264
            • em-bee 3y ago
              so to spammers shadowbanning makes no difference, but good-faith users somehow get discouraged even if they don't know they are shadowbanned just because they get no reaction to their posts? how is an explicit ban any less discouraging? i can't see how shadowbanning makes things worse for good-faith users. and evidently it does work against spammers here on HN (though we don't know if it is the shadow or the banning that makes it effective, but i'll believe dang when he says that it does help)
              • rhaksw 3y ago
                > how is an explicit ban any less discouraging? It's about whose messages are sidelined, not who gets discouraged. With shadow removals, good-faith users' content is elbowed out without their knowledge. Since they don't know about it, they don't adjust behavior and do not bring their comments elsewhere. Over 50% of Reddit users have removed content they don't know about. Just look at what people say when they find out [1]. > and evidently it does work against spammers here on HN It doesn't. It benefits people who know how to work the system. The more secret it is, the more special knowledge you need. [1] https://www.reveddit.com/#say https://www.reveddit.com/#say
    • rhaksw 3y ago
      You're correct again. Spammers and bots are the most determined actors, so these secretive measures don't impact them. In fact, such secrecy benefits spammers. Good-faith users never imagine that platforms would secretly action content. So when you look at overall trends, bots, spammers and trolls are winning while genuine users are being pushed aside. I argued that secrecy benefits trolls in a blog post, but I don't want to spam links to my posts in the comments.
      • speedgoose 3y ago
        Most spammers aren’t that competent. Hiding their posts without telling them used to be very effective on Reddit (now Reddit tells them). I guess it’s the same on HN.
        • rhaksw 3y ago
          Spammers are more competent than genuine users. They are advertisers, so they are more likely to be tracking metrics.
      • dang 3y ago
        If that were right, then HN would be overrun by spam.
        • rhaksw 3y ago
          So you think secretive measures more often defeat spammers than trusting users? I'd argue HN's content could be a lot better than it currently is. Content curation is necessary, but shadow moderation is not helping. When a forum removes visible consequences, it does not prepare its users to learn from their mistakes. I'll admit, I find HN to be more transparently moderated than Reddit and Twitter, but let's not pretend people have stopped trying to game the system. The more secret the rules (and how they are applied), the more a system serves a handful of people who have learned the secret tricks. Meanwhile, regular users who are not platform experts trust these systems to be transparent. Trustful users spend more time innovating elsewhere, and they are all disrupted by unexpected secretive tricks.
    • raverbashing 3y ago
      It has made sense since the internet was invented, spammers need everything thrown at them because they will abuse every nook and cranny of your system to get paid 1 cent more
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • skissane 3y ago
    I think there are two different types of sites you are blocking: (1) those which are just pure spam; (2) news/opinion/etc websites that you’ve decided are not suitable for HN for various reasons (such as being low quality and tending to produce more ideological flame-wars than curiosity), for example Breitbart I agree that publishing case (1) causes harm (spammers will just use a different domain if they know you’ve blocked theirs.) But case (2) is rather different. I don’t think the same justification for lack of transparency exists in this case. And I think shadow-banning the submission in case (2) is not very user-friendly. It would be better to just display an error, e.g. “submissions from this site are blocked because we do not believe it is suitable for HN” (or whatever). A new user might post stuff like (2) out of misunderstanding what the site is about rather than malevolence, so better to directly educate them than potentially leave them ignorant. Also, while Breitbart is rather obviously garbage, since we don’t know everything in category (2) on the list, maybe there are some sites on it whose suitability is more debatable or mixed, and its inappropriateness may be less obvious to someone than Breitbart’s (hopefully) is
    • dang 3y ago
      That's a good argument and subtle enough that I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree.