4 ms·

How would this work for something like Twitter/X when accounting for individuals serving the US government? Someone could be flagged as a troll on the backend f

How would this work for something like Twitter/X when accounting for individuals serving the US government? Someone could be flagged as a troll on the backend for unrelated reasons, but now their experience in communicating with someone in government is delayed. I understand that a delay is not the same thing as a block, but I wonder if the damage to the user’s experience is sufficiently similar for a federal judge.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
petre 3y ago
Don't use Twitter for government comms I guess? It's a private system with its own rules. They can degrade the experience as much as they like if the system flags one as a troll, regardless of their being part of an organization.
- tareqak 3y ago
  Well, here is the thing: maybe a troll can use the idea that a comments on a government official's account is a public forum and demand that the third party remove the troll flag, or demand that the troll flag be ignored for government accounts. > U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan ruled on May 23 that comments on the president's account, and those of other government officials, were public forums and that blocking Twitter Inc TWTR.N users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-twitter-idINKBN1KV2DP https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-twitter-idINKBN1KV... In the above case, the block was executed by the account holder who was a government official. Having the service provider flag a user as a troll and degrading their experience might be acceptable for comments on non-government accounts, but if a federal judge "flags" government accounts as public forums in a US court of law, then the service provider is now creating additional friction for a user participating in a public forum. We have had political candidates and politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doing AMAs on Reddit, so what I am describing is not a far-fetched hypothetical: https://old.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/6ftvhu/hey_reddit_i_am_alexandria_ocasiocortez_us/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/6ftvhu... .
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Surely the solution then is to block government officials from the platform. Bad for engagement but keeps your "no, really, this is a private forum" status. (Rather like how lots of non-US banks block US nationals from having an account even if they're resident in the bank's country, because of the paperwork overhead)
    - bunabhucan 3y ago
      It's really useful for fast moving emergent stuff like wildfires where there is patchy information from multiple sources (some people report smoke, some fire etc.)
    - petre 3y ago
      You'd be probably slapped with a law banning exactly that, which I'm surprised if it doesn't already exist. It's not the same thing as a bank in another country refusing to open an account to an average Joe because of too many hurdles involved with reporting your balance the the IRS.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Thorrez 3y ago
Twitter/X bans people outright. Surely that's a bigger issue for communication than lag.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  It isn't. When you're banned, you know you're banned. Thus, you know you can't expect to use your account for communication anymore. When you're shadow-banned, you don't know you are shadow-banned, and will continue to attempt using your account for communication, and believe it's the other people who are just ignoring you.
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    What type of shadow ban are you talking about? Are you talking about being unable to post (e.g. The Frustration Loop) or about other people being unable to see your posts? Then yes, I agree that's worse than being banned. But if we're talking about a 10-60s lag (as I mentioned in my comment and the previous posters were talking about), I say that's better than being banned, because communication can still take place.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Right, my mistake. I was talking about both shadow-bans and error-bans/The Frustration Loop. The common thing here is that you're being gaslighted by the service.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Twitter has been doing things worse than that for years. They seem to even have different levels of shadow banning. The practice is fundamentally malicious because innocent people get caught in it all the time. The two main problems both stem from the fact that they don't admit to doing it. The first is that you're posting interesting things but nobody ever sees it because you're shadow banned, and then what you should really do is create a new account and start over, but you don't know why nobody ever sees it. "Maybe you just don't have much of a following yet." But you never will with that account. An innocent person is subjected to the penalty meant for a spammer -- and suffers longer for it because they have no reason to expect they're being punished when they haven't done anything wrong. The second is that even if you figure it out, they still don't admit to doing it, the consequence of which is that there is no appeals process. So if you have an account with a significant following and then get shadow banned illegitimately, you're much more likely to notice this because your engagement falls off a cliff, but there is no process for undoing it other than to abandon your account and start over from scratch.
- pxoe 3y ago
  idk if some of those things are "shadowbanning" per se but more like limiting reach and promotion. there's the confusion (unaware or intentional) between 'getting actually shadowbanned, as in, your posts actually do not appear to anyone else but you' and 'not getting free promo, free algo boost, free views from the platform, if it either doesn't choose to promote you, or chooses to not promote you' (these two are subtle but different as well). 'not getting the extra boost from a platform' - or just really 'having a piece of content fare for what it is, just by itself'. these kinds of mixups lead to kinda inane takes like 'i'm not getting as many views -> the platform has shadowbanned me', which are particularly weird to actually see, as a post, that is very much up and visible (and not "shadowbanned"). there's almost a vague sense of entitlement to getting views, getting an audience from a platform, in bulk and for free, and for whatever it may be. when a platform really just may choose to not extraneously promote something. or have a more sophisticated way by which some piece of content 'bubbles up', as it gets engagement and moves up in ranks of reach and virality. or it may downrank something, which still isn't a "shadowban". but lo and behold, "shadowbanning" now has its meaning so diluted, you'll just get talking heads throwing it around, and very visibly so - almost as if they're unencumbered by it and just saying a buzzy word.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

petre 3y ago

Don't use Twitter for government comms I guess? It's a private system with its own rules. They can degrade the experience as much as they like if the system flags one as a troll, regardless of their being part of an organization.

tareqak 3y ago
Well, here is the thing: maybe a troll can use the idea that a comments on a government official's account is a public forum and demand that the third party remove the troll flag, or demand that the troll flag be ignored for government accounts. > U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan ruled on May 23 that comments on the president's account, and those of other government officials, were public forums and that blocking Twitter Inc TWTR.N users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-twitter-idINKBN1KV2DP https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-twitter-idINKBN1KV... In the above case, the block was executed by the account holder who was a government official. Having the service provider flag a user as a troll and degrading their experience might be acceptable for comments on non-government accounts, but if a federal judge "flags" government accounts as public forums in a US court of law, then the service provider is now creating additional friction for a user participating in a public forum. We have had political candidates and politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doing AMAs on Reddit, so what I am describing is not a far-fetched hypothetical: https://old.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/6ftvhu/hey_reddit_i_am_alexandria_ocasiocortez_us/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/6ftvhu... .
- pjc50 3y ago
  Surely the solution then is to block government officials from the platform. Bad for engagement but keeps your "no, really, this is a private forum" status. (Rather like how lots of non-US banks block US nationals from having an account even if they're resident in the bank's country, because of the paperwork overhead)
  - bunabhucan 3y ago
    It's really useful for fast moving emergent stuff like wildfires where there is patchy information from multiple sources (some people report smoke, some fire etc.)
  - petre 3y ago
    You'd be probably slapped with a law banning exactly that, which I'm surprised if it doesn't already exist. It's not the same thing as a bank in another country refusing to open an account to an average Joe because of too many hurdles involved with reporting your balance the the IRS.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Thorrez 3y ago

Twitter/X bans people outright. Surely that's a bigger issue for communication than lag.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
It isn't. When you're banned, you know you're banned. Thus, you know you can't expect to use your account for communication anymore. When you're shadow-banned, you don't know you are shadow-banned, and will continue to attempt using your account for communication, and believe it's the other people who are just ignoring you.
- Thorrez 3y ago
  What type of shadow ban are you talking about? Are you talking about being unable to post (e.g. The Frustration Loop) or about other people being unable to see your posts? Then yes, I agree that's worse than being banned. But if we're talking about a 10-60s lag (as I mentioned in my comment and the previous posters were talking about), I say that's better than being banned, because communication can still take place.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Right, my mistake. I was talking about both shadow-bans and error-bans/The Frustration Loop. The common thing here is that you're being gaslighted by the service.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

Twitter has been doing things worse than that for years. They seem to even have different levels of shadow banning. The practice is fundamentally malicious because innocent people get caught in it all the time. The two main problems both stem from the fact that they don't admit to doing it. The first is that you're posting interesting things but nobody ever sees it because you're shadow banned, and then what you should really do is create a new account and start over, but you don't know why nobody ever sees it. "Maybe you just don't have much of a following yet." But you never will with that account. An innocent person is subjected to the penalty meant for a spammer -- and suffers longer for it because they have no reason to expect they're being punished when they haven't done anything wrong. The second is that even if you figure it out, they still don't admit to doing it, the consequence of which is that there is no appeals process. So if you have an account with a significant following and then get shadow banned illegitimately, you're much more likely to notice this because your engagement falls off a cliff, but there is no process for undoing it other than to abandon your account and start over from scratch.

pxoe 3y ago
idk if some of those things are "shadowbanning" per se but more like limiting reach and promotion. there's the confusion (unaware or intentional) between 'getting actually shadowbanned, as in, your posts actually do not appear to anyone else but you' and 'not getting free promo, free algo boost, free views from the platform, if it either doesn't choose to promote you, or chooses to not promote you' (these two are subtle but different as well). 'not getting the extra boost from a platform' - or just really 'having a piece of content fare for what it is, just by itself'. these kinds of mixups lead to kinda inane takes like 'i'm not getting as many views -> the platform has shadowbanned me', which are particularly weird to actually see, as a post, that is very much up and visible (and not "shadowbanned"). there's almost a vague sense of entitlement to getting views, getting an audience from a platform, in bulk and for free, and for whatever it may be. when a platform really just may choose to not extraneously promote something. or have a more sophisticated way by which some piece of content 'bubbles up', as it gets engagement and moves up in ranks of reach and virality. or it may downrank something, which still isn't a "shadowban". but lo and behold, "shadowbanning" now has its meaning so diluted, you'll just get talking heads throwing it around, and very visibly so - almost as if they're unencumbered by it and just saying a buzzy word.