[rhaksw]

It's not trustworthy when a system actions a user's content without telling them. Free speech principles are also a thing.

The question is not what is getting demoted, it's how. In this case, it's being done secretly, and Twitter isn't the only one doing it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33916414

[belltaco]

This outrage is hilarious coz HN shadowbans people too. Which increases site quality which is why all the complainers are on here.

[rhaksw]

Transparently removing content is the normal way to moderate a forum. This research [1] suggests it reduces mod workload because users learn the rules. Discourse doesn't secretly remove content and is popular.

It isn't accurate to say secrecy increases site quality. No such qualitative study has been done.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/duwdco/should_mode...

[belltaco]

That's talking about article submissions, not comments. Couldn't read the PDF because the link is broken.

More than 95% of the time I see a flagged account on HN, they post complete garbage that leads to more flaming replies if not removed promptly. HN has a very limited set of moderators, like one or two, who cannot police every comment 24/7.

>Discourse doesn't secretly remove content and is popular.

Popular where? In corporate and niche business use cases? What are some public Discourses that allow everyone to post?

[rhaksw]

> That's talking about article submissions, not comments

Shadow moderation was implemented without doing any research. I agree it's about time more studies are done on all types of content and all platforms in order to assess whether or not this functionality furthers the platforms' goals.

> Couldn't read the PDF because the link is broken

Good call. Blog post summarizing [1] and pdf [2]

> Popular where? In corporate and niche business use cases? What are some public Discourses that allow everyone to post?

All of them that don't use the ShadowBan add-on, I guess.

Indeed shadow moderation appears to have made platforms more popular. I won't disagree there. But I also think it's clear it has contributed to echo chambers and increased isolation and tribality.

I think we're reaching a point where the public wants to know what's going on in social media. Its harmful nature is not just driven by preference-driven news feeds, which we already know can be toxic, it's also driven by shadow moderation. That's the other shoe that may be dropping here.

[1] https://medium.com/acm-cscw/does-transparency-in-moderation-...

[2] https://shagunjhaver.com/research/articles/jhaver-2019-trans...

[anigbrowl]

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3359252

You could have just use the menu to find it, it only took a few seconds. There's a preprint available there if you need it. https://shagunjhaver.com/research/

[dotnet00]

HN has an option to be able to see the removed content.

[anigbrowl]

No. I don't assume I have any rights other than vis-a-vis the government. I've dealt with a lot of corporate bullshit from tech companies, it's an annoyance but I just handle it and don't make a career out of whining about it as some do.

I've been arrested and kept in jail overnight on false charges for being a political activist, people complaining about being in Twitter or facebook jail don't impress me much (especially when almost all of them have a backup account).

[rhaksw]

Presumably you eat at restaurants whose food you like and buy hardware whose quality you like. It's the same with social media. You can give attention to systems you support and share information about them. The alternative you propose sounds like cowering to company overlords.

And where are you that it is illegal to be a political activist?

[anigbrowl]

I live in the good old USA, where I have the privilege to be a member of the underclass.