> so you know clearly if you’ve been shadowbanned
A shadowban that the user clearly knows about sounds like an oxymoron.
A shadowban that the user clearly knows about sounds like an oxymoron.
Perhaps it’s an issue with the definition of “shadowban”, but I understood it to mean “you tweet, but no one sees”. Letting a user know that their account is in this state for this_reason actually seems like an improvement to me, not an oxymoron.
> Shadow banning, also called stealth banning, hellbanning, ghost banning or comment ghosting, is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user's content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user
The point of shadowbans/hellbans as they exist on say, reddit, is to deal with what would be termed criminally as a fixated person. If they know they're banned, they just make a new account, and another one after that, and another one - if they think they can't post they engage in ever more extreme measures to keep doing it.
A hellban is a solution here, or at least a relief valve because of course this person doesn't actually engage with the community or care to, they're their to grief it: so letting them continue to think they're posting normally while being invisible keeps them occupied until either they lose interest or somehow figure it out.
Moderators are a finite resource, and spending all their resources chasing down someone who won't take the hint is exactly what a hellban is for.
Why? Isn't this a signal to the broader population that certain behaviors result in this kind of downranking?
>Moderators are a finite resource, and spending all their resources chasing down someone who won't take the hint is exactly what a hellban is for.
Again, it's it useful to signal that accounts that violate the rules (or are right up at the edge of violating them) are in this state?
You didn't actually address the OPs claims and the reason why shadowbanning exists. Sometimes you get people that are literal stalkers, harassers. People that chase out other individuals. The problem is when you ban them you give them a clear signal that they are unable to post. So what do they do? They create a new account. Then they repeat the process.
Not informing them that they violated the rules is the entire point. The broader population already knows that these behaviors are bad. The problem is dealing with specific users that refuse to give up and refuse to go away. To them their account has zero value; a ban means nothing to them. Their value is based on dealing damage to other users of your community.
The correct way to moderate is to be civil and treat "low quality" users as human beings. Reserve inhuman bans for inhuman users (bots).
As public online discourse becomes a more engrained part of normal society, shadowbans may even end up being an action that, in and of itself, end up being regulated and controlled. Shadowbans can help create a better and freer society for everybody, but they can also be used to create a dystopia. In some ways it's akin to a real world weapon. A firearm can be used to uphold and protected great values, but it can also be used to impose horrific ones.
Since when is getting a new phone number that receive SMS an insurmountable expensive? There are literally dozens, perhaps hundreds of services selling this. Example [1] https://www.textmagic.com/sms-pricing/ seems to cost me 7c per text received with no account fees, and I only need it to receive a sign up message.
That is far from "organized and funded". People paid $8 to make troll accounts on Twitter when it was possible.
You are correct that burning a SIM card is not that expensive.
However, your example of a text capable VOIP number is not a good one. FAANGs require a real mobile number and these texting services (twilio, for instance) will not work.
All of this to say:
It’s a bit more expensive than you think. If you really care about succeeding, you’re going to need to burn a SIM card.
The entire reason shadowbans exist and have existed for decades is because there's an inherently unsolvable problem with certain users that extremely fixate on certain users or communities. If you think they can be treated by being civil then I don't think you've been a moderator for any extensive period.