>they'll keep posting and not even know they're invisible.
As what happened on Reddit last week: http://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/351buo/tifu_by_posting...
I am aware of what it means, yes - though I'm not really sure why the nature of shadowbanning is relevant in whether someone deserves to be banned or not. As you suggest, if someone is outright banned they'll likely just make a new account. Shadowbanning is, if anything, a far more sensible type of ban.
And it's something that - at the risk of repeating myself - Hacker News also does.
I think that's very severe and undeserved. Just criticizing someone in a post shouldn't get you hellbanned. That's for persistent trolls that just won't go away.
Just criticizing someone in a post shouldn't get you hellbanned.
But we have no idea if it was "just criticism", or if it was worse.
The actual content of the post that appeared to merit the shadowban is as follows:
Buddy Fletcher, husband of Reddit CEO Ellen Pao, is being described as being the operator of Ponzi scheme
~144 million dollars of a pension fund was lost
Ellen Pao is now accused of frivolous lawsuits to try and stay afloat and some other shit. Seeing as she is a CEO of a large company and has a fraudster for a husband I think it's safe to say we have a textbook ASPD/Sociopath on our hands
Re:Reddit launches harassment crackdown
by TheLoneWolfling on Friday May 15, 2015 @07:34PM
(#9554314)
Except that shadowbans as done by Reddit are ineffectual.
It's trivial to detect - literally as simple as seeing if the user page exists when logged out (or just not sending the login cookie).
It's actually an anti-spam measure, because when you post while being shadowbanned you see your posts, but nobody else does. That means you could be posting for a long time and not even know all of your posts are actually invisible.
That's not just telling someone to fuck off the site. That's actually erasing them from the site because they won't even make a new account - they'll keep posting and not even know they're invisible.