4 ms·

This article explains why HN (Dang) should stop using this practice. I used a "shadowbanned" account for potentially years on this site without realizing I had

This article explains why HN (Dang) should stop using this practice. I used a "shadowbanned" account for potentially years on this site without realizing I had been banned. An email to Dang and he was gracious to reinstate me but I feel like a jackass for talking to myself for god knows how long. According to a study by Yale SOM, shadow banning can shift users’ opinions and increase polarization by selectively muting and amplifying posts in ways that appear neutral. This subtle control over collective opinions makes it difficult for users to realize they are being censored, underscoring the need for transparency and better regulation.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vsuperpower2020 2y ago
I suspect that there's a risk of psychological harm when people are exposed to shadow banning. Having to constantly ask yourself "Am I real? Can other people see me?" is not healthy or normal behavior, but after being shadowbanned on a particular site you start having to do it constantly.
- r721 2y ago
  Experienced users just learn to look at the place where their post/comment should appear using private/incognito browser window.
  - thatjoeoverthr 2y ago
    "just" be paranoid? A health person's reaction to a weak response is probably to assume, with some humility, that others didn't appreciate their comment so much. We're talking here about how the social media platform _ought to behave._
    - pseudalopex 2y ago
      A weak response and no response ever are different.
DenisM 2y ago
FWIW I browse with show dead and most shadow banned accounts deserve it for their abrasive style and lack of substance. It sucks to be collateral damage though, I sympathize.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  But is it a person who is abrasive and insubstantial, or is a comment? I have certainly been both those things many times, but I'm not like that all the time. (Haha, though some would disagree.) The trouble is, you can't "ban" a comment, since it is a one-off, but you can ban the person making it, and the level of effort needed to clean up comments instead of commenters is many orders of magnitude.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    dang said they tell established users when and why they're banned. It seems like most bans are public after a warning after a pattern.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> but I feel like a jackass for talking to myself for god knows how long. I'm the only one I know smart enough to appreciate my own wit. If I had realized you other people were reading my comments all along, it might've made me shy.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 2y ago
FWIW, Hacker News doesn't pretend to be a general-information forum, and I think they're well within their rights (practically and morally) to shape conversation to meet the goals of the space. This space has a published agenda and those who don't toe that line can go elsewhere; it's a very big Internet out there.
markx2 2y ago
My reply to you is not to do with the sentiment about opinions / polarization. At one time I moderated two large and growing forums - wordpress.org/.com - and there was an ability to shadowban. You post to a forum, as a mod I see your post and I ban you (for whatever reason) You understandably get angry You make a new account, post again and react angrily to the ban in your post I have no option but to ban you again We end up in a circle This is not good for you or me. If though I shadowban your anger does not rise, you do not make lots of new accounts and I do not create more work for us both. For me the key here is that shadowbanning is okay for an established user who one day went off the rails. Let them rant, check their later posts, and remove that shadowban when the calm has returned. But you must check. For new users, just ban, block and use tools to autoblock going forward. I was a mod on a growing subreddit for almost 10 years. Sometimes a shadow-banned user would post. As a mod we could see the post. We would let the post be published but would also reply along the lines of "You are shadowbanned by the reddit admins. This is how you check [give info] and this is how you appeal [give info]." Blanket shadowbanning is a bad thing. Such bans must be reviewed.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

vsuperpower2020 2y ago

I suspect that there's a risk of psychological harm when people are exposed to shadow banning. Having to constantly ask yourself "Am I real? Can other people see me?" is not healthy or normal behavior, but after being shadowbanned on a particular site you start having to do it constantly.

r721 2y ago
Experienced users just learn to look at the place where their post/comment should appear using private/incognito browser window.
- thatjoeoverthr 2y ago
  "just" be paranoid? A health person's reaction to a weak response is probably to assume, with some humility, that others didn't appreciate their comment so much. We're talking here about how the social media platform _ought to behave._
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    A weak response and no response ever are different.

DenisM 2y ago

FWIW I browse with show dead and most shadow banned accounts deserve it for their abrasive style and lack of substance. It sucks to be collateral damage though, I sympathize.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
But is it a person who is abrasive and insubstantial, or is a comment? I have certainly been both those things many times, but I'm not like that all the time. (Haha, though some would disagree.) The trouble is, you can't "ban" a comment, since it is a one-off, but you can ban the person making it, and the level of effort needed to clean up comments instead of commenters is many orders of magnitude.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  dang said they tell established users when and why they're banned. It seems like most bans are public after a warning after a pattern.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> but I feel like a jackass for talking to myself for god knows how long. I'm the only one I know smart enough to appreciate my own wit. If I had realized you other people were reading my comments all along, it might've made me shy.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

shadowgovt 2y ago

FWIW, Hacker News doesn't pretend to be a general-information forum, and I think they're well within their rights (practically and morally) to shape conversation to meet the goals of the space. This space has a published agenda and those who don't toe that line can go elsewhere; it's a very big Internet out there.

markx2 2y ago

My reply to you is not to do with the sentiment about opinions / polarization. At one time I moderated two large and growing forums - wordpress.org/.com - and there was an ability to shadowban. You post to a forum, as a mod I see your post and I ban you (for whatever reason) You understandably get angry You make a new account, post again and react angrily to the ban in your post I have no option but to ban you again We end up in a circle This is not good for you or me. If though I shadowban your anger does not rise, you do not make lots of new accounts and I do not create more work for us both. For me the key here is that shadowbanning is okay for an established user who one day went off the rails. Let them rant, check their later posts, and remove that shadowban when the calm has returned. But you must check. For new users, just ban, block and use tools to autoblock going forward. I was a mod on a growing subreddit for almost 10 years. Sometimes a shadow-banned user would post. As a mod we could see the post. We would let the post be published but would also reply along the lines of "You are shadowbanned by the reddit admins. This is how you check [give info] and this is how you appeal [give info]." Blanket shadowbanning is a bad thing. Such bans must be reviewed.