| HN Mirror

I think the question was due to the claim that the domain is shadowbanned, not the vouching.

misnome 544 days ago

I suspect it’s more some threshold of vouching required, because I know for a fact some of the other dead submissions got vouched.

Still, this apparently completely undocumented standard behaviour seems a little bit troubling? It’s not like 404media is a spam content mill (and I doubt it is the ability to bypass the paywall - those methods don’t work on 404?)

No. Although I may not have the exact reason the domain was banned, I've been around long enough to observe that everytime a 404media.co article is posted and gets traction, the comments unanimously complain about the paywall and it gets flagkilled.

Vouching is intended as a corrective check on things that shouldn't be automatically killed.

So it’s not shadowbanned in the sense that the server sees the domain and automatically flags the post, but users manually flag it?

https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=404media.co&next=3932...

Now it's shadowbanned, but that wasn't the case when 404media.co first launched.

What does shadowbanned mean to you?

Shadowbanned means "in the sense that the server sees the domain and automatically flags the post," as you said, which is the behavior described in my original comment.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

You wrote this in present tense:

> Although I may not have the exact reason the domain was banned, I've been around long enough to observe that everytime a 404media.co article is posted and gets traction, the comments unanimously complain about the paywall and it gets flagkilled.

So I thought this is what you meant by shadowbanned.

quintin 544 days ago

Got it. Miss your Techcrunch trolls btw

me too