Right, but you don't accidentally shadow-ban someone, you first have to create the whole system to do so... So they weren't 'stupid'.

It obviously was intentional to lie to the user. We're just discussing the line at which intentional lies for selfish reasons can be called malicious.

> but you don't accidentally shadow-ban someone

Have you considered when the shadow-ban is triggered by an automated moderation system based on heuristics or ML which Google is known to use prolifically across their product range?

But not "accidental" because they had to create and maintain it. Stupid would be them intending but failing to make post visible.

They intentionally created a system which resulted in a user being unintentionally shadow-banned. Creating a shadow-banning system isn't malicious. Creating a shadow-banning system that accidentally shadow-bans legitimate users is pretty obviously more a case of stupidity than malice. Just because they created the system intentionally, doesn't mean unintended behaviours in the system are intentional malice

The maliciousness comes in with the self-interest. They're lying to you because they make more money when you don't know to complain.

They aren't like baby killers or anything, but they are certainly prioritizing their wallet over your consumer good and even safety.

Imagine if HN charged to post and shadow-banned users.