4 ms·

IMO, this is a good thing. Lack of transparency when it comes to moderation is a bad thing. If a user is getting punished for breaking rules, they should be s

IMO, this is a good thing. Lack of transparency when it comes to moderation is a bad thing. If a user is getting punished for breaking rules, they should be shown exact the message that led to the action, so that users can't claim they got banned for no reason or for some vague reason about community standards. Also, I've never been a fan of immediately going nuclear and banning people for their first rule violation unless it's especially egregious. A simple "Hey, we don't do that here" and a short period of time-out can be a lot more effective for changing behavior.

bastardoperator 3y ago
What's egregious to you? I personally don't mind if doxxers, racists, or criminals(war thunder leak?) get the ban hammer immediately.
- _chu1 3y ago
  It's stupid and egregious to ban someone for "breaking TOS" or "sharing harmful information" and not telling them exactly what they did and where they did it, no matter what you see them as.
  - bachmeier 3y ago
    Only from the perspective of the person getting banned. From the perspective of the person paying the bills, you're paying someone to spend time explaining why you kicked them out, and then you're paying them to discuss the reasoning, and then you're paying them to discuss the reason with hundreds of users that don't think there's anything wrong with calling someone [some word]. Not only that, you're doing that to satisfy the curiosity of someone you've decided you don't want anywhere near your site. I'd be on board with your line of argument if it involved a payment of $X to cover out-of-pocket expenses and the hassle of dealing with BS.
    - _chu1 3y ago
      Nobody wanted to "have a chance to explain themselves". I just wanna be told what got me banned, not a complex request.
      - chmod775 3y ago
        >I just wanna However in this instance they (Discord) would have no reason to care about what you want, so saying that you want something is really no argument.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - tuatoru 3y ago
    Off topic but I can't resist: happens to a lot of people accused of sexual harassment at work. They get permabanned from work, and don't know what they said or did, nor when, where, or to whom.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Let's look through your post history. How many comments before we can come up with a reason to ban you that would be widely accepted in most contexts? 3. > I worked with a well know hacker Holy shit, we've got a confessed security risk on our hands! Ban immediately, before bastardoperator hacks us all!
  - bastardoperator 3y ago
    I love how you left out the "/author"... I'm sorry, where are we again?
    - b59831 3y ago
      [dead]
    - hnaccount141 3y ago
      That's the whole point. Permabanning on the first offense ignores the reality that these large-scale moderation systems (automated or human) tend to lack nuance and context-awareness, leading to false positives. A system of escalating warnings adds slack to protect good-faith users from those sorts of moderation failures.
      - bastardoperator 3y ago
        So if someone shares CP on discord you think they should be given a warning and not permabanned? The justice system isn't going to give them any slack so why should a private entity? Where do you draw the line? I asked in my initial comment, "What's egregious to you". No one will answer that...
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        jrajav 3y ago
        > So if someone shares CP on discord you think they should be given a warning and not permabanned? "Think of the children" is consistently used as an escape hatch to avoid actually doing due diligence in enforcement and moderation. You aren't protecting anyone by lazily granting root to content moderation / surveillance / whatever system is under discussion. You're just making those systems worse.
- 10000truths 3y ago
  Sure, as long as they're told why they're banned.
  - bastardoperator 3y ago
    They were banned for doxxing 13 year olds in call of duty lobby and calling them the N word... I'm sure everyone feels so much better now. That's what you need? Really...
    - decremental 3y ago
      [dead]
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  Doxxing, threats of violence, CSAM, for sure. Dropping a racial slur? Nah, I'd let that be a 1-hour timeout that begins the next time you try to send a message. As someone else said, teenagers like to test boundaries and be edgy. Show them where the boundaries are and let them have a chance to correct their behavior.
hx8 3y ago
> “We believe people, especially teens, have the ability to change when given the opportunity, so we want to offer those opportunities,” says Badalich Quote from the article. Teenagers are well known for testing boundaries. If you ban them for doing their natural behavior they will either leave and never come back, or just create a new account.
- ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
  I think I understand what you're getting at, but of course if you permaban anyone for any reason they'll have no choice but to leave or make a new account.
  - hx8 3y ago
    I had written a sentence along the lines of "the timeout should increase teenage retention and engagement" but felt it was so obvious based on my previous two sentences. I think now a good summary would have been along the lines of "This can provide a teaching moment to teenagers and improve their experience." Even though this feels like an obvious inference based on the rest of the post, it does provide a nice summary and drives the point I was attempting to make.
- southernplaces7 3y ago
  That some bullshit digital chat channel company should give itself the right to morally judge when and how people should or shouldn't change is itself an idiotic idea to take seriously. I really do hope more people reject this nonsense over time and actively work to punish companies that assume themselves arbiters of correct behavior. Sure, community standards and moderation are necessary, but MANY digital companies today take that basic concept and stretch it into all kinds of puritanical parochialism. It's almost ironic how much we regress to village shaming standards as we move forward into a global communications future.
  - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
    Bad take, IMO. Companies have every right to dictate what behavior they allow on their platform, full stop.
crooked-v 3y ago
It also seems really, really smart about long-term planning for their target growth audience (e.g. teenagers and college students) in a way that I haven't seen from any other social platform. If a platform wants to be the center of social life for people that age and keep them long-term, it absolutely needs to be able to handle the statistical nigh-guarantee that most teenagers will break any reasonable TOS at one point or another.
22c 3y ago
Discord permanently banned every single user who was present in TheDonald community Discord server after January 6. Every single person. Even if they had never said a word, even if they joined several years earlier and muted the server and hadn't opened it since. Discord is as transparent as mud. Now that it's difficult to sign up to Discord without a phone number, my money is on the only reason they're doing this being user retention.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  This sounds a lot like the quality of moderation on many subreddits.

bastardoperator 3y ago

What's egregious to you? I personally don't mind if doxxers, racists, or criminals(war thunder leak?) get the ban hammer immediately.

_chu1 3y ago
It's stupid and egregious to ban someone for "breaking TOS" or "sharing harmful information" and not telling them exactly what they did and where they did it, no matter what you see them as.
- bachmeier 3y ago
  Only from the perspective of the person getting banned. From the perspective of the person paying the bills, you're paying someone to spend time explaining why you kicked them out, and then you're paying them to discuss the reasoning, and then you're paying them to discuss the reason with hundreds of users that don't think there's anything wrong with calling someone [some word]. Not only that, you're doing that to satisfy the curiosity of someone you've decided you don't want anywhere near your site. I'd be on board with your line of argument if it involved a payment of $X to cover out-of-pocket expenses and the hassle of dealing with BS.
  - _chu1 3y ago
    Nobody wanted to "have a chance to explain themselves". I just wanna be told what got me banned, not a complex request.
    - chmod775 3y ago
      >I just wanna However in this instance they (Discord) would have no reason to care about what you want, so saying that you want something is really no argument.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- tuatoru 3y ago
  Off topic but I can't resist: happens to a lot of people accused of sexual harassment at work. They get permabanned from work, and don't know what they said or did, nor when, where, or to whom.
jjoonathan 3y ago
Let's look through your post history. How many comments before we can come up with a reason to ban you that would be widely accepted in most contexts? 3. > I worked with a well know hacker Holy shit, we've got a confessed security risk on our hands! Ban immediately, before bastardoperator hacks us all!
- bastardoperator 3y ago
  I love how you left out the "/author"... I'm sorry, where are we again?
  - b59831 3y ago
    [dead]
  - hnaccount141 3y ago
    That's the whole point. Permabanning on the first offense ignores the reality that these large-scale moderation systems (automated or human) tend to lack nuance and context-awareness, leading to false positives. A system of escalating warnings adds slack to protect good-faith users from those sorts of moderation failures.
    - bastardoperator 3y ago
      So if someone shares CP on discord you think they should be given a warning and not permabanned? The justice system isn't going to give them any slack so why should a private entity? Where do you draw the line? I asked in my initial comment, "What's egregious to you". No one will answer that...
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - jrajav 3y ago
        > So if someone shares CP on discord you think they should be given a warning and not permabanned? "Think of the children" is consistently used as an escape hatch to avoid actually doing due diligence in enforcement and moderation. You aren't protecting anyone by lazily granting root to content moderation / surveillance / whatever system is under discussion. You're just making those systems worse.
10000truths 3y ago
Sure, as long as they're told why they're banned.
- bastardoperator 3y ago
  They were banned for doxxing 13 year olds in call of duty lobby and calling them the N word... I'm sure everyone feels so much better now. That's what you need? Really...
  - decremental 3y ago
    [dead]
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
Doxxing, threats of violence, CSAM, for sure. Dropping a racial slur? Nah, I'd let that be a 1-hour timeout that begins the next time you try to send a message. As someone else said, teenagers like to test boundaries and be edgy. Show them where the boundaries are and let them have a chance to correct their behavior.

hx8 3y ago

> “We believe people, especially teens, have the ability to change when given the opportunity, so we want to offer those opportunities,” says Badalich Quote from the article. Teenagers are well known for testing boundaries. If you ban them for doing their natural behavior they will either leave and never come back, or just create a new account.

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
I think I understand what you're getting at, but of course if you permaban anyone for any reason they'll have no choice but to leave or make a new account.
- hx8 3y ago
  I had written a sentence along the lines of "the timeout should increase teenage retention and engagement" but felt it was so obvious based on my previous two sentences. I think now a good summary would have been along the lines of "This can provide a teaching moment to teenagers and improve their experience." Even though this feels like an obvious inference based on the rest of the post, it does provide a nice summary and drives the point I was attempting to make.
southernplaces7 3y ago
That some bullshit digital chat channel company should give itself the right to morally judge when and how people should or shouldn't change is itself an idiotic idea to take seriously. I really do hope more people reject this nonsense over time and actively work to punish companies that assume themselves arbiters of correct behavior. Sure, community standards and moderation are necessary, but MANY digital companies today take that basic concept and stretch it into all kinds of puritanical parochialism. It's almost ironic how much we regress to village shaming standards as we move forward into a global communications future.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  Bad take, IMO. Companies have every right to dictate what behavior they allow on their platform, full stop.

crooked-v 3y ago

It also seems really, really smart about long-term planning for their target growth audience (e.g. teenagers and college students) in a way that I haven't seen from any other social platform. If a platform wants to be the center of social life for people that age and keep them long-term, it absolutely needs to be able to handle the statistical nigh-guarantee that most teenagers will break any reasonable TOS at one point or another.

22c 3y ago

Discord permanently banned every single user who was present in TheDonald community Discord server after January 6. Every single person. Even if they had never said a word, even if they joined several years earlier and muted the server and hadn't opened it since. Discord is as transparent as mud. Now that it's difficult to sign up to Discord without a phone number, my money is on the only reason they're doing this being user retention.

shiroiuma 3y ago
This sounds a lot like the quality of moderation on many subreddits.