Poll: Shadowbanning/Stealth Banning; Agreeable or No?

[The Lunatic]

I think it's pretty scummy, but, it's your website, you can do what you want. I personally won't use your website if you do it though.

 

[Pseudonym]

I've never really thought about it. I don't really like the idea of deceiving people about whether their posts are read. I do see how it could be an effective way to counter bots, harassment and the like and given the current state of the internet I won't hate on anyone too hard for being harsh in their measures against that, though I think this measure is rather unpleasant. I think there are better ways to deal with problems like these. Captcha's, a waiting time between making an account and being able to post, IP-bans, etc. There are better ways to crack down on the worst of the internet.

 

[Zhukov]

I do kind of love the idea of internet arseholes being abandoned to screech their drivel into an uncaring void.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Not ok with it.

Reason being: Mods are people. Sites are run by people. People are prone to acting on their feelings or biases to achieve goals, especially when they occupy a position of relative power to others.

Therefore, it's a tool that would and has, demonstrably, been abused.

So no, not cool.

With a caveat...

I think it's pretty scummy, but, it's your website, you can do what you want. I personally won't use your website if you do it though.

Yeah, agreed.

It's their site to do what they want with, but I'd still argue there's something of a social contract for a place like reddit or twitter, considering their sheer size and influence on public discourse/information.

If you're following the established rules and are being punished regardless, which happens, due to the aforementioned bias, then you're still being wronged whether it's their site or not.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

*shrug* depends on who the ban is for? For regular users, no - simply because it's both shitty towards them and just makes the problem worse when the shadowbanning is revealed. Even if you're banning someone for a simple disagreement it's best to do it up front, because lord knows people will ruin your shit over trying to be sneaky about shit like that. Take 50 lashes now instead of 300 lashes and a crucifixion kinda deal, if you know what I mean.

For Bots and hyper-aggressive trolls? Fuck it, who the hell cares? It's not like either of those things are there to make the website/community better, might as well let 'em spam into oblivion where none can see 'em.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

So a topic that popped up recently on Reddit was the practice of "Shadow"/Stealth Banning people from Subreddits, or websites altogether;

Basically "Shadow"/Stealth banning is the practice of either preventing people's posts/threads from appearing altogether, or making it look like they appear to the person in question, but they don't actually appear for anyone else, even if that person is given a direct link to the topic (one of the easiest ways to find if you've been stealth banned). Or in some cases returning a mysterious/vague "error" message that can't seem to be resolved.

The concern is that rather than police actual offenses, this type of banning is used to enforce political views/ideas and the personal whims/ideas of moderators and sites without having to commit to an actual ban that could get the issuer caught (since there is no trail, no statements issued and often the target can't even tell).

Is "Shadow"/stealth banning acceptable? Or should sites and mods grab their brass ones and make themselves and the reason for the bans known in all cases?

For my personal view, I've very much seen and been on the receiving end of the negative end of this kind of banning - I'm an old veteran of IMGUR's NSFW Wars. The Cliffnotes version is this;

Spoiler

The popular image hosting/sharing site IMGUR didn't used to have filters or much in the way of rules. The sites owner and manager, Sarah, wanted to crack down on a lot of the outright porn and such that was being posted. So she and her mods began banning anything remotely NSFW, including things that you could ostensibly find in a PG-13 movie or T rated game. This made a lot of the community mad as it seemed that the mods and Sarah were completely overreacting without trying to find any middle ground. It went back and forth pretty badly, but Sarah finally broke down and relented - IMGUR received a filter system and a "Mature" category, though outright porn was still banned. However, Sarah very clearly was bitter over losing and having to give in lest she lose their viewership of her site. She's allowed her mods to basically run rampant and the defining rule is "You could be banned/have your content removed for having pretty women, period, at the sole personal taste of the mods/Sarah". Though they claim they don't shadowban and that they follow an objective standard for banning and removing content, basically no one believes them. One user in particular even made a forum thread showing how the site shadow bans people (IMGUR likes the "Infinite Vague Error Message" approach)....though it was quickly taken down.

I think it sounds fucking hilarious to be honest, makes people take a while before they realize they're banned and may try to evade it somehow. Something just amuses me about someone just continuing to post being a dick and no one ever responding or seeing it

The 'worry' about the ban sounds pretty silly, the tool itself doesn't lend to that any more than a regular ban with discussion of bans being forbidden

Also, for the record, you lose a lot of credibility in your telling when you say 'having pretty women' could be enough. We all know exactly what you're talking about and it's disingenuous to just phrase it as 'pretty women'.

 

[Kyrian007]

Not only is it acceptable, it needs to be done far more often than it is. Frankly, the poster doesn't have any rights. The forum is owned by whomever owns it or put it together. They have absolutely every right to moderate that site however they wish. If the WAY they moderate it angers a user, that user has every right to find another board they like better. If you feel a shadowban is going too far, then leave the site that is shadowbanning. I haven't really ever been affected by someone else's ban. In fact every ban I've ever seen online was totally deserved. Sure there are probably some out there that were an abuse of power, but frankly every moderated forum I've ever been in is hugely preferable to the freaking sewers that are unmoderated. And if a couple of people out there have been banned unjustly... well the difference is worth cost.

 

[Paragon Fury]

So a topic that popped up recently on Reddit was the practice of "Shadow"/Stealth Banning people from Subreddits, or websites altogether;

Basically "Shadow"/Stealth banning is the practice of either preventing people's posts/threads from appearing altogether, or making it look like they appear to the person in question, but they don't actually appear for anyone else, even if that person is given a direct link to the topic (one of the easiest ways to find if you've been stealth banned). Or in some cases returning a mysterious/vague "error" message that can't seem to be resolved.

The concern is that rather than police actual offenses, this type of banning is used to enforce political views/ideas and the personal whims/ideas of moderators and sites without having to commit to an actual ban that could get the issuer caught (since there is no trail, no statements issued and often the target can't even tell).

Is "Shadow"/stealth banning acceptable? Or should sites and mods grab their brass ones and make themselves and the reason for the bans known in all cases?

For my personal view, I've very much seen and been on the receiving end of the negative end of this kind of banning - I'm an old veteran of IMGUR's NSFW Wars. The Cliffnotes version is this;

Spoiler

The popular image hosting/sharing site IMGUR didn't used to have filters or much in the way of rules. The sites owner and manager, Sarah, wanted to crack down on a lot of the outright porn and such that was being posted. So she and her mods began banning anything remotely NSFW, including things that you could ostensibly find in a PG-13 movie or T rated game. This made a lot of the community mad as it seemed that the mods and Sarah were completely overreacting without trying to find any middle ground. It went back and forth pretty badly, but Sarah finally broke down and relented - IMGUR received a filter system and a "Mature" category, though outright porn was still banned. However, Sarah very clearly was bitter over losing and having to give in lest she lose their viewership of her site. She's allowed her mods to basically run rampant and the defining rule is "You could be banned/have your content removed for having pretty women, period, at the sole personal taste of the mods/Sarah". Though they claim they don't shadowban and that they follow an objective standard for banning and removing content, basically no one believes them. One user in particular even made a forum thread showing how the site shadow bans people (IMGUR likes the "Infinite Vague Error Message" approach)....though it was quickly taken down.

I think it sounds fucking hilarious to be honest, makes people take a while before they realize they're banned and may try to evade it somehow. Something just amuses me about someone just continuing to post being a dick and no one ever responding or seeing it

The 'worry' about the ban sounds pretty silly, the tool itself doesn't lend to that any more than a regular ban with discussion of bans being forbidden

Also, for the record, you lose a lot of credibility in your telling when you say 'having pretty women' could be enough. We all know exactly what you're talking about and it's disingenuous to just phrase it as 'pretty women'.

Not Banned, Removed or Suspended [http://imgur.com/gallery/cpO6R]

Removed and Suspended [http://imgur.com/a/CRjAm]

I could go on, but that might be pushing the point too hard.

 

[sageoftruth]

Well, everyone who's for it is talking about the good it does when used properly, and all the naysayers are talking about the harm it can do when it's abused.

Sounds to me like it's not Shadowbanning that needs to be condemned but rather the abuse of Shadowbanning.

I'm pretty torn. I've seen people with controversial but honest arguments get dismissed as trolls, and I've seen dedicated trolls circumvent less ironclad systems. I hate anything that stands in the way of a proper discussion, like false troll claims, and yet I think actual trolls also stand in the way of a proper discussion by feeding into distrust on the internet, and encouraging the previous problem.

I think warnings are important. Some people just lack social skills and need to be informed when they're being out of line. Instead of Shadowbanning right from the get go, I think it should be used on those who have already received a number of warnings and continue to break the rules regardless.

 

[Saelune]

Well, everyone who's for it is talking about the good it does when used properly, and all the naysayers are talking about the harm it can do when it's abused.

Sounds to me like it's not Shadowbanning that needs to be condemned but rather the abuse of Shadowbanning.

I'm pretty torn. I've seen people with controversial but honest arguments get dismissed as trolls, and I've seen dedicated trolls circumvent less ironclad systems. I hate anything that stands in the way of a proper discussion, like false troll claims, and yet I think actual trolls also stand in the way of a proper discussion by feeding into distrust on the internet, and encouraging the previous problem.

I think warnings are important. Some people just lack social skills and need to be informed when they're being out of line. Instead of Shadowbanning right from the get go, I think it should be used on those who have already received a number of warnings and continue to break the rules regardless.

The problem is, I think the abuse of shadowbanning would not be easy to fight because well...its inherently secretive. If abused right, no one will even know something is wrong.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

So a topic that popped up recently on Reddit was the practice of "Shadow"/Stealth Banning people from Subreddits, or websites altogether;

Basically "Shadow"/Stealth banning is the practice of either preventing people's posts/threads from appearing altogether, or making it look like they appear to the person in question, but they don't actually appear for anyone else, even if that person is given a direct link to the topic (one of the easiest ways to find if you've been stealth banned). Or in some cases returning a mysterious/vague "error" message that can't seem to be resolved.

The concern is that rather than police actual offenses, this type of banning is used to enforce political views/ideas and the personal whims/ideas of moderators and sites without having to commit to an actual ban that could get the issuer caught (since there is no trail, no statements issued and often the target can't even tell).

Is "Shadow"/stealth banning acceptable? Or should sites and mods grab their brass ones and make themselves and the reason for the bans known in all cases?

For my personal view, I've very much seen and been on the receiving end of the negative end of this kind of banning - I'm an old veteran of IMGUR's NSFW Wars. The Cliffnotes version is this;

Spoiler

The popular image hosting/sharing site IMGUR didn't used to have filters or much in the way of rules. The sites owner and manager, Sarah, wanted to crack down on a lot of the outright porn and such that was being posted. So she and her mods began banning anything remotely NSFW, including things that you could ostensibly find in a PG-13 movie or T rated game. This made a lot of the community mad as it seemed that the mods and Sarah were completely overreacting without trying to find any middle ground. It went back and forth pretty badly, but Sarah finally broke down and relented - IMGUR received a filter system and a "Mature" category, though outright porn was still banned. However, Sarah very clearly was bitter over losing and having to give in lest she lose their viewership of her site. She's allowed her mods to basically run rampant and the defining rule is "You could be banned/have your content removed for having pretty women, period, at the sole personal taste of the mods/Sarah". Though they claim they don't shadowban and that they follow an objective standard for banning and removing content, basically no one believes them. One user in particular even made a forum thread showing how the site shadow bans people (IMGUR likes the "Infinite Vague Error Message" approach)....though it was quickly taken down.

I think it sounds fucking hilarious to be honest, makes people take a while before they realize they're banned and may try to evade it somehow. Something just amuses me about someone just continuing to post being a dick and no one ever responding or seeing it

The 'worry' about the ban sounds pretty silly, the tool itself doesn't lend to that any more than a regular ban with discussion of bans being forbidden

Also, for the record, you lose a lot of credibility in your telling when you say 'having pretty women' could be enough. We all know exactly what you're talking about and it's disingenuous to just phrase it as 'pretty women'.

Not Banned, Removed or Suspended [http://imgur.com/gallery/cpO6R]

Removed and Suspended [http://imgur.com/a/CRjAm]

I could go on, but that might be pushing the point too hard.

Yes, thank you for proving my point that it isn't about who's pretty, no need to hammer it in

Or is the point that you've got a very distorted view that what you like is objective?

 

[Cycloptomese]

Wait! This is a thing? Someone please respond to this post. I wanna see if I'm shadowbanned!

 

[BoogieManFL]

You can't learn from a shadowban like you can a real one.

 

[cleric of the order]

It's cowardice plain and simple.
If you believe someone should be banned ban them.
This reeks of an in ability to ban them on the rules and a weakness to just say fuck you i don't want you here.
It's also the worst because it wastes the time of the person who's trying to interact

 

[cleric of the order]

Wait! This is a thing? Someone please respond to this post. I wanna see if I'm shadowbanned!

you have not been
have I?

 

[Cycloptomese]

Wait! This is a thing? Someone please respond to this post. I wanna see if I'm shadowbanned!

you have not been
have I?

Nope. You're good.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Frozen peaches?

A term I find amusing that mocks the idea of hiding behind some very incorrect ideas of what free speech means and covers as a defense for one's inability to not make posts on websites that aren't against said website's rules.

Probably actually more recognizable as "freeze peach", but I'm not as fond of that one because it doesn't fit into normal English as well.

Basically, free speech isn't protected on a website like The Escapist, or Twitter, or Reddit, or most other online places, so anything you say can be moderated, edited, or deleted at the discretion of the people running the place.

EDIT: Or rather, free speech likely is protected on many websites, but "free speech" meaning the ability to say whatever you want, however you want, whenever you want, without consequences isn't.

Be honest. People who complain about free speech are complaining about people who have opinions that they disagree with. You have no problem with people breaking code of conduct rules on online forums. Just as long they are stating strong opinions that you agree with. It doesn't have to be in context of the internet. For example: Kathy Griffin holding the severed head of President Trump.

On Topic: I have been a victim of shadowbanning a long time ago. After Michael Jackson's death, some people were excusing and condoning the accusations of him molesting children. I wrote a post calling them out about it. It took me a few months to figure out what was happening. They eventually told me that I was banned. Only after I sent a series of emails to ask them to correct the problem.

It's interesting the most my of trouble online came from when I was being critical of child molesters. It's one of those...

Spoiler

So, no, I am not in favor of shadowbanning. It's too easily abused. If it's done right, bots and aggressive trolls, then it's no problem. In this era, where people believe that Free Speech = Hate Speech. Less tools to help assholes passively aggressively punish people that they simply disagree with, the better.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

You can't learn from a shadowban like you can a real one.

Is the point to teach someone? I think usually not

It's cowardice plain and simple.
If you believe someone should be banned ban them.
This reeks of an in ability to ban them on the rules and a weakness to just say fuck you i don't want you here.
It's also the worst because it wastes the time of the person who's trying to interact

That seems like a silly notion, the person will probably learn of it eventually anyways, nothing requires the rules for a shadow ban to be any different from a regular one when it comes to when to employ one. And tbh, if you're at the point of banning someone it seems like you're unlikely to have reason to care that you're wasting their time

Frozen peaches?

A term I find amusing that mocks the idea of hiding behind some very incorrect ideas of what free speech means and covers as a defense for one's inability to not make posts on websites that aren't against said website's rules.

Probably actually more recognizable as "freeze peach", but I'm not as fond of that one because it doesn't fit into normal English as well.

Basically, free speech isn't protected on a website like The Escapist, or Twitter, or Reddit, or most other online places, so anything you say can be moderated, edited, or deleted at the discretion of the people running the place.

EDIT: Or rather, free speech likely is protected on many websites, but "free speech" meaning the ability to say whatever you want, however you want, whenever you want, without consequences isn't.

Be honest. People who complain about free speech are complaining about people who have opinions that they disagree with. You have no problem with people breaking code of conduct rules on online forums. Just as long they are stating strong opinions that you agree with. It doesn't have to be in context of the internet. For example: Kathy Griffin holding the severed head of President Trump.

I'd say honesty would you be acknowledging that he hasn't expressed a problem with free speech but with certain people trying to pretend it ought to be defending them from any and all criticism or reaction

 

[bdeamon]

I'm fine with it. I mean, people have the right to express themselves, but they don't have the right to dictate the conditions when someone else owns or provides the medium. It's the reason terms and conditions along with forum rules exist.

 

[cleric of the order]

That seems like a silly notion, the person will probably learn of it eventually anyways, nothing requires the rules for a shadow ban to be any different from a regular one when it comes to when to employ one.

If you have a reason to ban them then there is at once an ability to show the behavior they may be engaged in is 1. intolerable to the moderating staff and 2. allows people to understand the limits of acceptable behavior. Shadow banning not so much. Furthermore Shadow banning can't have the same utility of of a ban itself or there would be no reason to have developed/integrated it in the first place.
By on it's own it's open for abuse and i consider it to be in the same league as throttling.
The only reasonable argument for it I've seen is that regarding proxies but as you've said they will pick up on it it eventually. But even then any arsehole worth his salt would have already had alternate accounts set up. And even then you're dealing with a very small percentage of internet personalities no?

And tbh, if you're at the point of banning someone it seems like you're unlikely to have reason to care that you're wasting their time

And i have really little reason to care about the feelings of moderating personal, more so for the community. The job is rough but they chose to do it, I expect them to enforce the rules evenly, as i will try my best to not break said rules. What i don't like is extra powers for an authority, in the same way many are trustful of the police i am of moderators. And for good reason they are only human, there will be mod freakouts, there will be crooked mods (I know a couple of communities that have outright been killed because of mod abuse), the more transparent a internet community can be the better it is for everyone.

I'd say honesty would you be acknowledging that he hasn't expressed a problem with free speech but with certain people trying to pretend it ought to be defending them from any and all criticism or reaction

Not entirely fair.
I dislike the almost moralistic tones one has to take when referring to this but i've seen people engage in behavours that count "critism" as use of physical force, going after a person's home or place of work as well as other unsavory and dangerous behaviors.
I don't care what ideas those may be.
Fighting folks for having the "wrong ideas".
This is how you get Authoritarian nutters in charge, 27bc, 1930s all the same.