zlacker

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+(OP)
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+V
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)

>>em-bee+Bt
> how is an explicit ban any less discouraging?

It's about whose messages are sidelined, not who gets discouraged.

With shadow removals, good-faith users' content is elbowed out without their knowledge. Since they don't know about it, they don't adjust behavior and do not bring their comments elsewhere.

Over 50% of Reddit users have removed content they don't know about. Just look at what people say when they find out [1].

> and evidently it does work against spammers here on HN

It doesn't. It benefits people who know how to work the system. The more secret it is, the more special knowledge you need.

[1] https://www.reveddit.com/#say