Tell HN: t.co is adding a five-second delay to some domains

>>xslowz+(OP)
I think that HN itself also shadow flags submissions from a list of domains it doesn't like.

Try submitting a URL from the following domains, and it will be automatically flagged (but you can't see it's flagged unless you log out):

  - archive.is
  - watcher.guru
  - stacker.news
  - zerohedge.com
  - freebeacon.com
  - thefederalist.com
  - breitbart.com

>>mutant+l1
Well, yes, many sites are banned on HN. Others are penalized (see e.g. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). None of this is secret, though we don't publish the lists themselves.

Edit: about 67k sites are banned on HN. Here's a random selection of 10 of them:

  vodlockertv.com
  biggboss.org
  infoocode.com
  newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com
  moringajuice.wordpress.com
  surrogacymumbai.com
  maximizedlivingdrlabrecque.com
  radio.com
  gossipcare.com
  tecteem.com

>>dang+p1
Would be nice if the lists were published though with a link to the list from the submission form.

>>jemmyw+12
The problem is that if you publish the lists it leads to more abuses. For example if spammers find out which sites are banned then they just post other ones.

>>dang+O2
> For example if spammers find out which sites are banned then they just post other ones.

I don't think that makes sense. The supposed spammers can just try looking up whether their submissions show up or not when not logged in.

>>mutant+o3
That also requires additional effort on the spammers’ part. Increasing cost of attacks is an effective defense strategy.

>>lcnPyl+x3
Increasing cost of attacks is effective against good faith people, not spammers.

Even Cory Doctorow made this case in "Como is Infosec" [1].

The only problem with Cory's argument is, he points people to the SC Principles [2]. The SCP contain exceptions for not notifying about "spam, phishing or malware." But anything can be considered spam, and transparency-with-exceptions has always been platforms' position. They've always argued they can secretly remove content when it amounts to "spam." Nobody has challenged them on that point. The reality is, platforms that use secretive moderation lend themselves to spammers.

[1] https://doctorow.medium.com/como-is-infosec-307f87004563

[2] https://santaclaraprinciples.org/

>>rhaksw+m7
platforms that use secretive moderation lend themselves to spammers

how is that? i can understand it not being useful, but how would it help spammers?

>>em-bee+zu
Spammers game the system while good-faith users get edged out. Spammers are determined actors who perceive threats everywhere, whereas good-faith users never imagine that a platform would secretly remove their content. Today, you see low quality content on social media, not because the world is dumb, but because the people who get their message out know the secret tricks.

Secret suppression is extremely common [1].

Many of today's content moderators say exceptions for shadowbans are needed [2]. They think lying to users promotes reality. That's bologna.

[1] https://www.removednews.com/p/hate-online-censorship-its-way...

[2] https://twitter.com/rhaksw/status/1689887293002379264

>>rhaksw+uv
so to spammers shadowbanning makes no difference, but good-faith users somehow get discouraged even if they don't know they are shadowbanned just because they get no reaction to their posts? how is an explicit ban any less discouraging?

i can't see how shadowbanning makes things worse for good-faith users. and evidently it does work against spammers here on HN (though we don't know if it is the shadow or the banning that makes it effective, but i'll believe dang when he says that it does help)

zlacker