zlacker

>I think shadowbanning is a bit unethical as it technically involves lying, but afaik HN doesn't do such things.

It does. A ban on HN is a shadowban. You can still post but only those who have "show dead" on will see it (greyed out and marked dead).

>>pb7+(OP)
Shadowbanning is when you don't tell the user that they're banned. When an account has an established history on HN, we tell them we're banning them and why: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

Shadowbanning is something we only do for either (1) spammers or (2) new accounts that are showing signs of being repeat abusers. This seems to be roughly the correct tradeoff.

>>dang+T2
Responding to an offending user’s comment on a site with no notifications barely qualifies as telling them. If you truly wanted to inform them, you would either put a banner next to their name in the header or simply prevent them from being able to post. You and I both know what the intention is here, just like the rate limit you have placed on my account.

>>pb7+Xs
It's telling them in the same way that anybody tells anybody anything here.

Obviously the intention is to inform—otherwise why bother? Those comments take a lot of time to write.

>>dang+T2
This post has been deleted and the user has left.

>>nonomo+lI
I can confirm for you that you're not shadowbanned. Flagging comes from users, not moderators. It simply means that multiple members of the community in good standing indicated that your comments are not a good fit for HN.

I suspect your "other comment" got flagged for being political polemic from a new account, which fits the pattern of, as dang phrased it, "repeat abusers".