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
You're correct again. Spammers and bots are the most determined actors, so these secretive measures don't impact them.

In fact, such secrecy benefits spammers. Good-faith users never imagine that platforms would secretly action content. So when you look at overall trends, bots, spammers and trolls are winning while genuine users are being pushed aside.

I argued that secrecy benefits trolls in a blog post, but I don't want to spam links to my posts in the comments.

>>rhaksw+s6
If that were right, then HN would be overrun by spam.

>>dang+bk
So you think secretive measures more often defeat spammers than trusting users? I'd argue HN's content could be a lot better than it currently is.

Content curation is necessary, but shadow moderation is not helping. When a forum removes visible consequences, it does not prepare its users to learn from their mistakes.

I'll admit, I find HN to be more transparently moderated than Reddit and Twitter, but let's not pretend people have stopped trying to game the system. The more secret the rules (and how they are applied), the more a system serves a handful of people who have learned the secret tricks.

Meanwhile, regular users who are not platform experts trust these systems to be transparent. Trustful users spend more time innovating elsewhere, and they are all disrupted by unexpected secretive tricks.

>>rhaksw+6q
> So you think secretive measures more often defeat spammers than trusting users?

Yes. And it's really not a close question.

"Regular users" don't have to be platform experts and learn tricks and stuff. They just post normal links and comments and never run into moderation at all.

>>sander+CI1
> They just post normal links and comments and never run into moderation at all.

On the contrary, secret suppression is extremely common. Every social media user has probably been moderated at some point without their knowledge.

Look up a random reddit user. Chances are they have a removed comment in their recent history, e.g. [1].

All comment removals on Reddit are shadow removals. If you use Reddit with any frequency, you'll know that mods almost never go out of their way to notify users about comment removals.

[1] https://www.reveddit.com/y/Sariel007/

archive: https://archive.is/GNudB

>>rhaksw+7M2
I'm talking specifically about HN, not reddit.

zlacker