> It's deceit, but in a similar category of deceit to telling a user the resource is 404 not found instead of 403 or 401 because you don't even trust them enough

Is it the same? Showing a 404 is a security measure that applies equally to anyone lacking sufficient privileges. Ideally an app should prevent you from getting these, or show a message like "Not found, or no access".

> It's deceit with the purpose of stymiing further malicious action.

Shadowbans are powerful moderation weapons. Too much so, I'd say. The moderator is both prosecutor, judge and executioner. Who is the lawyer? Who revises after a time if the shadowbanned person has redeemed themself? Maybe their bad behavior was just a temporary fit, or even a mental breakdown they have since recovered from. Or they just become wiser grown-ups over time. All very human things that happen, but now they have a harsh sentence applied to them, and they may not even know about it.

Especially at scale these things should be handled properly. And importantly there should be transparency of how the procedures work, what the status is, and what one can do about it.

I also wonder to what degree on the big social platforms there exist even more subtle measures than all-out shadowbans. Like setting metrics on a sliding scale to define the extent the AI should limit a person's influence on the network.

Maybe this already has a name, but let's call it "shadow suppression". With such measures in place a person's voice can be dimimished for a lifetime without them ever knowing. They get a Like or a Comment here and there, but they will never go viral or even reach the audience that they think they address, and no matter how good their content and behavior becomes.

Normally you don't get any of that process because you don't have any right to use someone else's service. They can ban you for having red hair or blue eyes if they please and they would be foolish but not in the wrong.

"They can ban you for having red hair or blue eyes if they please and they would be foolish but not in the wrong."

I am not sure if that is true anymore, with the implementation of anti-discrimination laws.

I mean practically it is still the internet, but if your service is public and beyond a certain size, someone might indeed sue you for doing that.

Sure, but scale that lack of rights to platforms will millions or billions of users, and you get effective dictatorship. Platforms just wielding too much power that extends well beyond their walled garden, impacting society as a whole. The question is often raised if e.g. FB should be considered a utility service, and have their policies tightly regulated.

Edit: I submitted a separate Ask HN on "shadow suppression": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28344492

It's an odd dictatorship that someone voluntarily submits to.

Being out of Facebook's decisions on what you may say is as simple as closing your account.

People’s desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights. Pay attention to history and this is pretty apparent.

It's a bit of a catch-22 though, isn't it?

If people can make sound independent judgment, we don't need a law constraining what private companies must allow on their services because private users will find the censorship reprehensible and will voluntarily leave. We need the First Amendment to constrain what government can do because people cannot voluntarily leave a government; the same is not true for their Facebook account.

And if people cannot make sound independent judgment, and their desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights... How can we trust them with the freedom to say and hear unfiltered information? The first demagogue who comes along and convinces them they must do what he says or they don't fit in will have the whole user base in their power, right? In such a context, it is perhaps necessary to allow the media its freedom of the press to transmit what is true and refrain from transmitting what is false.

> How can we trust them with the freedom to say and hear unfiltered information?

Why does this always come up? Like this exact example. Where there no others? Do you know how I read this? “I think I’m smarter than everyone, and everyone should look to me for the truth”.

> In such a context, it is perhaps necessary to allow the media its freedom of the press to transmit what is true and refrain from transmitting what is false.

This is mostly what we have now. Go compare the divide between the parties vs the Grand Canyon. This is the result. Why? Because opinions. And what does the left do when they can’t disprove an opinion ? Cancel/censor.

We also need the first amendment to apply to corporations. The left found the loophole and is giddily exercising it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the left found the loophole," can you clarify?

The gov cannot directly limit speech except in certain, very limited, cases. Instead they get corporations to do it for them. Which is currently very legal.

Well said.

Perhaps it’s time we change these laws, and anybody creating a place to talk with others can’t have any rules banning anybody. Perhaps it’s time we pass laws that force companies to abide by the first amendment.

You foster and shape a community by first telling people what you will accept and then by banning people whose behavior doesn't comport with standards. Here we sit on a functional community with such standards discussing this matter politely with one another wherein your argument would be to remove the standards that make this community worth chatting on.

Just because you and are I reasonable doesn't mean the overarching internet is. It's manifestly not. It's extremely likely that a large part of the signal that makes this community valuable would depart if it was entirely filled with 10x as much noise.

Let people make their own communities with different standards if they don't like this one.

> It's extremely likely that a large part of the signal that makes this community valuable would depart if it was entirely filled with 10x as much noise.

What does this say about those participants who do leave? The entire point of different opinions is different points of view on the same subject. Those leaving simply because they don’t like the general narrative do no abide by this principle and probably shouldn’t have been in the community in the first place. Those leaving because they experienced daily abuse, that’s reasonable. I still don’t think they should leave, but instead grow thicker skin.

I don't want to read through 10x as much stupid, offensive, or otherwise bad content in order to read the same number of insightful content. Life is finite. Overwhelmingly the sort to get themselves banned are sharing crazy. I don't think I'm missing much or indeed anything. Why shouldn't I embrace less crazy in my life.

> Overwhelmingly the sort to get themselves banned are sharing crazy. I don't think I'm missing much or indeed anything. Why shouldn't I embrace less crazy in my life.

Because when someone is censoring you can't know if it's crazy or not. You just assume it is, like you are now.

Nobody's obligated to grow thicker skin to use Facebook. In fact, Facebook would prefer to not put that obligation on their users; it decreases adoption and retention numbers.

And decreases the ability for people to hear harsh communications. You want to take over the US? Just stand right in the middle and start saying mean things.

There are very online fora I am aware of that have any kind of arbitration or check on the execution of administrator or moderator authority.

Facebook is one (which is why they will be reinstating Trump's account in the future: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/06/facebook-response-to-overs...).

Yes, but that example refers to a very high profile account. I wonder if the average person will get the same amount of attention (or at least a reasonable amount) in similar cases. Also this refers to a very noticable account suspension, not a shadowban that may stay under the radar.