![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I reverted following the 1RR policy. See WP:PGBOLD. Endercase ( talk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@
Endercase: - in your
edited lede sentence describing stealth banning as the act of blocking a user from an online community in such a way that discourages protest or even realization of its occurrence
, is "discouraging protest" really a meaningful part of stealth banning? If I'm stealth banned from a site and discover this, my ability to protest the fact seems no different to if I'd been banned overtly - I create a new account (or turn to a different site) and protest there. I can't see offhand that the sources talk about "discouraging protest" as an effect of stealth banning. --
McGeddon (
talk)
10:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Those sources (Breitbart and Infowars) are the only "media" outlets I am currently aware of that have been the "victims" of Shadow Banning while also having reader name recognition. As such have published the most "news" and "documentation" about the phenomena. Additionally, the information I used from those sources can be easily verified by independent research (which I can not cite). @ Trivialist talk Endercase ( talk) 17:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
References
Facebook and Twitter: |
---|
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/twitter-facebook-censorship-mainstream-media-denial/
http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/the-answer-to-bias-bans-by-twitter-facebook/ |
Facebook: |
---|
https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=561009897371250 |
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2808147
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17923/ www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/16/exclusive-twitter-shadowbanning-is-real-say-inside-sources/ breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used www.infowars.com/proof-twitter-is-censoring-donald-trump-to-block-fundraising-efforts/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/07/twitter-shadowbans-censorship-and-antitrust/8173/ http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/16/14635030/twitter-shadow-ban-moderation https://atrueprogressive.wordpress.com/tag/shadowbanning/
|
Reddit: |
---|
www.infowars.com/reddit-shadow-bans-infowars-as-fake-news-war-accelerates/ infowars.com is
fringe, does not meet our
sourcing guidelines and should not be used
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/11ggji/can_someone_please_explain_to_me_what_shadow/ Claims SB was replaced in 2015 (it wasn't): https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/reddit-account-suspensions/ Sub for determining if a user is SB: https://www.reddit.com/r/ShadowBanned/ case of a shadowban 2014 https://www.dailydot.com/news/unidan-reddit-shadowbanned-crow-ben-eisenkop/ https://news.fastcompany.com/reddits-new-blocking-feature-sounds-like-well-shadow-banning-4002329 |
Whatsapp: |
---|
Not really sure if it counts: https://twitter.com/durov/status/671357796730834945?lang=en |
Periscope: |
---|
https://www.reddit.com/r/periscope/comments/3fq7no/suddenly_no_one_can_see_my_comments/ |
Twitter and Periscope: |
---|
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152204980091/twitter-and-periscope-shadowban-update |
general shadowbanning |
---|
http://lexicontexture.com/what-is-shadowbanning/
|
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/aETNn7NZGj8%5B1-25%5D |
https://boingboing.net/2016/12/02/chinas-we-chat-shadow-bans.html |
Twit room |
---|
http://www.citadel.org/doku.php/documentation:system_administration_manual ("all messages posted will automatically be routed to the Trashcan (or whatever you call your twit room")
http://www.citadel.org/doku.php/documentation:appproto:system_config (more technical, implies that as a "room" the twit room may be accessed by authorized users (no mention of who is authorized)) http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netos/article.php/3740746/Set-Up-Basic-Groupware-With-Citadel.htm (says the "main floor" includes the trashcan (AKA twit room) no mention who can access) A good discussion on the history; ends up claiming that the "twit bit" was the first of its kind. http://ask.metafilter.com/117775/What-was-the-first-website-to-hide-trolls-activity-to-everyone-but-the-troll-himself http://www.citadel.org/doku.php/documentation:appproto:room_indexes_and_messages (looks like from here users are allowed to enter their personal trash room but maybe not "the trashcan" |
"AI" management of Sleath banning |
---|
I don't have anything yet, but it is the only plausible explanation I can see for some of the above citations.Please add sources if you would like. Endercase ( talk) 20:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
Endercase ( talk) 22:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
One more for you: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/10/30/0126246 198.189.140.15 ( talk) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I've cut the apparently unsourced claim that messages from twitted Citadel users "could only be seen by that user and administrators" - not sure if User:Jidanni added "by that user and" as common sense based on the article subject, or from a deeper dig through the sources, but the Coding Horror blog doesn't appear to actually say this, and the Metafilter discussion shouldn't be used as a source as it's just a forum chat.
From reading the thread, it seems like the system might have been more along the lines of automatically hiding all the user's messages, with admins having the option to make some of those messages visible again to everyone. I've added what I could find from some Citadel documentation, but further detail would be good here if we can find any. -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
It has been suggested by two users that I respect that I retire from this article for a while. I will do so. My above source list is fair game, of course. Sadly as this is still a "news" item and not a historical one finding more reliable (hindsight) sources may be difficult. The best one I think is probably this one: ( https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2808147), the pdf is online if you know where to look. I am always open for discussion. Good luck and may the force or whatever be with you. Document as many sides of the (cite-able) truth as you can find and all that. Endercase ( talk) 04:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Does Jeff Atwood, co-founder of Stack Overflow, meet WP:SPS as an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", to the point where we can cite his blog entry about the history of stealth banning? From a skim around the internet, he's written for Gizmodo on the subject of early bulletin boards. (Pinging User:JzG, who cut some content on the grounds that Atwood's blog is not an RS.) -- McGeddon ( talk) 11:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
An expert would be very helpful. We have very little documentation or information to cover an effect that effects everyone that interacts on any site that uses this feature.
"is heavily sourced" it has 8 listed sources, that is not heavily in my POV. There was a great deal of information that was removed recently, citing a lack of reliable sources. (with these tags that information may now be returned if you wish)
The very lack of coverage in and of itself is a "systemic bias problem". This is a censure based phenomenon that lead to apparent censorship (removal of information or input) and as such the lack of available reliable information, coverage, or explanation panders to that bias.
Baring logical argument that addresses these concerns the tags will remain. Endercase ( talk) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, Breitbart has done the most work on shadow banning, but editors are banned from citing it, because the censors here assert that it is “unreliable.”
As Maury Povich would say, “That… is a lie.”
I’ve read the “reliable” sources (New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), and I’ve read Breitbart, and Breitbart is much more honest, i.e., reliable. The term “reliable sources,” as used at Wikipedia is just a code phrase for, “media organizations whose politics we like,” whereas “unreliable” is code for, “media organizations whose politics we hate.”
Mentioning Breitbart in the same breath as Alex Jones’ Prison Planet is just meant to smear Breitbart through guilt by association.
Since the only source that has done serious work on shadow banning is one which is hated by the dominant clique here, there cannot be a properly-sourced article on shadow banning. Ergo, this article should be deleted. 2604:2000:9046:800:8D46:F708:7191:DF4C ( talk) 23:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a draft at User:Endercase/draft, it is nowhere near deployment but anyone can help work on it. Reliable sources are always appreciated. Endercase ( talk) 00:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Everybody uses THIS term, so use it here too, ignorant wikipediot ^ I concur. To those who doubt, this can easily be verified by performing a simple web search.
Google numbers: shadowban Vs stealthban 639,000 vs 6,990
"shadow ban" Vs "stealth ban" 314,000 vs 5,400
Google numbers are estimates always over-estimates in my experience, but a reliable rough guide to a terms popularity e.g. shadowban is used ~100 more than stealthban both in the concatenated form and when a space is forced between the words so that ratio seems reasonably stable too. I have no idea how to actually change the title of the page so if someone with more wikipedia experience can do that, it would be great. SilentBear ( talk) 23:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I just started the hellbanning article, and found it tough to find reliable sources. I will look more a little later today -- meantime, if anyone else can find reliable sources, that would be great. I checked Google News archives, Google Books and Google Scholar, but found nothing much. Thanks Sue Gardner ( talk ) 20:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
That's because this isn't UrbanDictionary.com... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.90.59 ( talk) 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the Unsigned IP that this isn't article worthy, but I've corrected the information on Stack Overflow; there's no such option on the site and I'm a mod on the network; there is no such tool and no evidence of such a ban ever occurring. The blog post referenced was a theoretical exercise. -- Sirtaptap ( talk) 17:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting that info on Stack Overflow! Although, question: how is this not article-worthy? Sure seems like it to me. Internet culture is a very article-worthy subject, and I imagine stealth-banning could easily prove controversial, as I doubt it hasn't already in other spheres of discussion.
--- It seems like a very interesting topic to me as well. For paid services it may even constitute false advertising, e.g. intentionally deceiving customers about the service they are purchasing, but I'm no legal scholar and rules laws vary in different nations. For reliable sources I have no idea why ppl are saying that reliable sources are difficult to find. I've read countless articles over the years about the practice, here are three articles discussing the practice in a bing news search I just did: https://www.business2community.com/instagram/instagrams-new-shadowban-hurting-engagement-01851139 https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/reddit-account-suspensions/ http://www.ubergizmo.com/2017/05/pokemon-go-cheaters-shadowbanned/ All of these are significant news sites in overlapping but different domains. A wikipedia article is definitely justified. What it is. How it is/could be done. History (claims, proofs, admissions/denials/abandonment). Legality etc. These are all interesting wikipedia worth topics. SilentBear ( talk) 23:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
In the last paragraph, in reference to Craigslist, the word ghosting is capitalised; is it a proper noun? Otherwise, it should be lowercase.
I suggest that the following is added:
WeChat was found in 2016 to ban posts and messages that contain certain keywords without notice. [1] [2]
In a study that looked at tweets from 2014 to early 2015, over a quarter million tweets were found during the one year period in Turkey to have been censored [3] via shadowbanning. Twitter was also found, in 2015, to shadowban tweets containing leaked documents in the US. [4] [5]
References
/Thank you for you time, Endercase ( talk) 01:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we can add instagram and pokemon go (Nintendo) as companies that allegedly use shadow banning based on my above article search: https://www.business2community.com/instagram/instagrams-new-shadowban-hurting-engagement-01851139 https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/reddit-account-suspensions/ http://www.ubergizmo.com/2017/05/pokemon-go-cheaters-shadowbanned but I haven't look into the details of any of those cases. In general, I think it would be good separate out companies that 1st party claim to employ shadow banning, 3rd party sourced claims, 3rd part controversy that falls short of direct claims, and any claims proven to be false. They all seem like distinct categories. SilentBear ( talk) 00:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
A section about the abusing of this system, and the criticism is missing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:1898:6146:674B:F726 ( talk) 02:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
+1 for critical section SilentBear ( talk) 02:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Shadow banning would be a better location for this article per WP:COMMONNAME. I will conduct the move per discussion above. Endercase ( talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The definition in the article seems to be focused of forum posts, but this isn't the only context in which shadowbanning is used. For instance this article https://thenextweb.com/gaming/2017/05/24/pokemon-go-update-trolls-cheaters-common-monsters/#.tnw_qThED78W uses it to describe a system where targeted users are banned from good random rewards, in that case good pokemon go monsters. Hiding a user's posts from the rest of the community is obviously an insufficient definition to include thenextweb's use of the term, and probably gaming in general.
Here are three elements I think the description needs to bring out. (1) Targeted content/user(s), the targeting method doesn't matter, but it must target so that some content/users and not others are affected (2) A change in the software behavior designed to be undetectable / difficult to detect (3) The change is intentionally designed to impede or negate the either the user's interaction and or the content's visibility (a bit rough but, that's why it is on the talk page, we need to be careful to describe element 3 in such a way that it doesn't include A/B tests and flighting that companies intentionally and invisibly creates differential treatment in order to test new algorithms. For example: a bug in the test algorithm may have the effect of negating users content in the test group, but that is NOT a shadowban bc shadowbanning is intentional) In the context of forums a shadowban could just be hiding the user's posts, but could be more extensive including ignoring their comment up/down votes, DMs etc.
I think youtube's restricted mode policy is an interesting case to examine. What makes this a nice example, I believe its existence is documented in 3rd and 1st party sources, and restricted mode targets content/users and hides it from other users (all nonlogged in use and logged in children) so it is quite similar in many respects, but if the content creator looks specifically in the right place, youtube tells them what is happening. So that isn't a shadowban right? Hypothetically it has a grey area too, what if the user has thousands of videos and youtube doesn't send a notification email that a video was placed in restricted mode. The user technically still has a way to tell, but it has been made quite practically difficult, making that hypothetical a semi-shadowban? It would be interesting to see if there are articles discussing/labeling this nuance. SilentBear ( talk) 02:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Another interesting gray area example is spam filters. They discriminate based on content and sometimes sender, e.g. known spam hosts. They also never (in practice) tell the content creator the final visibility status spam/inbox. Messages in the spam folder are technically visible to the receiver(s) but practically no-one looks in the spam filters anymore so intentionally putting things in there may qualify for semi-shadowban? SilentBear ( talk) 02:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-- Endercase ( talk) 20:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
New sources popping up. Endercase ( talk) 06:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Where is the ProjectVeritas Finding? Why is everything so suspectly old, there are Daily News in May '18. And where are the damn foreign versions? Why do you protect TWITTER with their own Lies??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.227.119.190 ( talk) 22:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
We should start gathering peer reviewed, and publicly reported evidence of shadow banning on twitter. Sadly, I can only find a very limited number of sources right now. Endercase ( talk) 17:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC) www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/16/exclusive-twitter-shadowbanning-is-real-say-inside-sources/ breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used www.infowars.com/proof-twitter-is-censoring-donald-trump-to-block-fundraising-efforts/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/07/twitter-shadowbans-censorship-and-antitrust/8173/ http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/16/14635030/twitter-shadow-ban-moderation Endercase ( talk) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The reliability of Breitbart and Infowars was called into question. I call for discussion. See Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva for more. Endercase ( talk) 22:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
And no mention of Facebook? Page administrators have this option openly.
Is anything currently being done to stop shadow banning? Also, is there a lack of information due to simply there not being enough instances of shadow banning? Brittany Mumford ( talk) 21:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed PragerU from the "Notable examples" section. RS support for "shadow ban" and "censor" terminology has not been provided. – dlthewave ☎ 01:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
An entire paragraph is dedicated to claims that rest solely on a debunked VICE News article. The NY Times explicitly says that VICE News misuses the term shadowbanning [1], and other RS also say that the VICE piece is wrong [2] [3]. Furthermore, the action construed as 'shadow-banning' by VICE also applied to left-leaning Twitter accounts. The content does not belong on this article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
In the last paragraph, it says, "Reportedly, an ad is placed, confirmation is sent that it has been posted." I would fix this myself, but I'm unsure what it's saying: "if an ad is placed, confirmation is sent that it has been posted"? Or is it saying something else?
It should be this: Reportedly, if an ad is placed, confirmation is sent that it has been posted."
ClariLynx ( talk) 23:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
and other sources make clear that there wasnt shadowbanning going on, and it wasnt unique to conservative accounts.
@ Snooganssnoogans: what was this supposed to mean? wumbolo ^^^ 15:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
From my reading of sources, "shadow banning" seems to have evolved into mostly a conspiracy theory. See for example:
Source: EXPLAINED: What is shadow banning? By BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP Technology Writer. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how shadow banning is a conspiracy theory. I think that this article needs to be brought up to date. There is clear evidence that the algorithms used by major social media companies to sort information for users demonstrates several biases [1] [2] - one of which is a bias towards liberal mainstream media content and/or thought and away from conservative content. One need look no further than this Huff Post article on the testimony of Zuckerberg regarding Internet personalities Diamond and Silk to see that Facebook actively suppressed their conservative "celebrity" account until there was sufficient public pressure applied to reverse that decision [3]. That's hardly a conspiracy theory. Wcmcdade ( talk) 17:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
References
I believe this is the series of quotes you may be looking for. From September 2017 to April 2018, Facebook insists that they had just made “an enforcement error” on an account with over 1 million followers?
“Zuckerberg responded by saying his team had “made an enforcement error, and we’ve already gotten in touch with them to reverse it.”” Wcmcdade ( talk) 23:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I moved the info about Twitter in 2018 from the paragraph in the Twitter 2014/2015 events [11], trimmed it [12], and then decided it would be better to just remove given the comments in the section above and the redundancy: -- Ronz ( talk) 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
In July of 2018, in response to allegations of shadow banning, Twitter's legal and product leads stated that Twitter does not shadowban accounts, [1] but that the platform's ranking model may have meant that certain Republican Representatives may been ranked lower by the auto-suggestion algorithm. [1] United States President Donald Trump has alleged that Twitter employs the practice, and has threatened an investigation. [2] [1] [3] [4] [5]
References
I did not go through the history to see how the redundancy was created, or if other solutions had been lost along the way. If nothing else, we might want to use some of the references. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to include information both critical of and also supporting Twitter's denial of banning that is borne out of the Project Veritas video as part of their #AmericanPravda campaign, titled, "UNDERCOVER VIDEO: Twitter Engineers to "ban a way of talking" Through "shadow banning," Algorithms to Censor Opposing Political Opinions. [1] This section should also include some of the other ways in which Twitter bans or filters content described as "Search Suggestion Ban", "Search Ban", "Thread Ban" and "Quality Filter Discrimination". [2] Wcmcdade ( talk) 16:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
References
This article from Vox may be enough to introduce the conspiracy theory aspect into the article. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:15, 11 September 2018
so I wouldn't trust anyone on shadow banning if they cite ViceAs I said, that alone doesn't impact the reliability of a source. It would depend upon how they use the citation, and if we rely upon anything related to the Vice citation...
I've gone ahead and added it [13] -- Ronz ( talk) 19:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
We are on content, its the fact that the article describes it as a conspiracy theory that is the main problem now. Why and how was it considered a conspiracy in any way? Vice and Vox are NOT reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.104.253 ( talk) 04:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I reverted following the 1RR policy. See WP:PGBOLD. Endercase ( talk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@
Endercase: - in your
edited lede sentence describing stealth banning as the act of blocking a user from an online community in such a way that discourages protest or even realization of its occurrence
, is "discouraging protest" really a meaningful part of stealth banning? If I'm stealth banned from a site and discover this, my ability to protest the fact seems no different to if I'd been banned overtly - I create a new account (or turn to a different site) and protest there. I can't see offhand that the sources talk about "discouraging protest" as an effect of stealth banning. --
McGeddon (
talk)
10:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Those sources (Breitbart and Infowars) are the only "media" outlets I am currently aware of that have been the "victims" of Shadow Banning while also having reader name recognition. As such have published the most "news" and "documentation" about the phenomena. Additionally, the information I used from those sources can be easily verified by independent research (which I can not cite). @ Trivialist talk Endercase ( talk) 17:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
References
Facebook and Twitter: |
---|
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/twitter-facebook-censorship-mainstream-media-denial/
http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/the-answer-to-bias-bans-by-twitter-facebook/ |
Facebook: |
---|
https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=561009897371250 |
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2808147
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17923/ www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/16/exclusive-twitter-shadowbanning-is-real-say-inside-sources/ breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used www.infowars.com/proof-twitter-is-censoring-donald-trump-to-block-fundraising-efforts/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/07/twitter-shadowbans-censorship-and-antitrust/8173/ http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/16/14635030/twitter-shadow-ban-moderation https://atrueprogressive.wordpress.com/tag/shadowbanning/
|
Reddit: |
---|
www.infowars.com/reddit-shadow-bans-infowars-as-fake-news-war-accelerates/ infowars.com is
fringe, does not meet our
sourcing guidelines and should not be used
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/11ggji/can_someone_please_explain_to_me_what_shadow/ Claims SB was replaced in 2015 (it wasn't): https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/reddit-account-suspensions/ Sub for determining if a user is SB: https://www.reddit.com/r/ShadowBanned/ case of a shadowban 2014 https://www.dailydot.com/news/unidan-reddit-shadowbanned-crow-ben-eisenkop/ https://news.fastcompany.com/reddits-new-blocking-feature-sounds-like-well-shadow-banning-4002329 |
Whatsapp: |
---|
Not really sure if it counts: https://twitter.com/durov/status/671357796730834945?lang=en |
Periscope: |
---|
https://www.reddit.com/r/periscope/comments/3fq7no/suddenly_no_one_can_see_my_comments/ |
Twitter and Periscope: |
---|
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152204980091/twitter-and-periscope-shadowban-update |
general shadowbanning |
---|
http://lexicontexture.com/what-is-shadowbanning/
|
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/aETNn7NZGj8%5B1-25%5D |
https://boingboing.net/2016/12/02/chinas-we-chat-shadow-bans.html |
Twit room |
---|
http://www.citadel.org/doku.php/documentation:system_administration_manual ("all messages posted will automatically be routed to the Trashcan (or whatever you call your twit room")
http://www.citadel.org/doku.php/documentation:appproto:system_config (more technical, implies that as a "room" the twit room may be accessed by authorized users (no mention of who is authorized)) http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netos/article.php/3740746/Set-Up-Basic-Groupware-With-Citadel.htm (says the "main floor" includes the trashcan (AKA twit room) no mention who can access) A good discussion on the history; ends up claiming that the "twit bit" was the first of its kind. http://ask.metafilter.com/117775/What-was-the-first-website-to-hide-trolls-activity-to-everyone-but-the-troll-himself http://www.citadel.org/doku.php/documentation:appproto:room_indexes_and_messages (looks like from here users are allowed to enter their personal trash room but maybe not "the trashcan" |
"AI" management of Sleath banning |
---|
I don't have anything yet, but it is the only plausible explanation I can see for some of the above citations.Please add sources if you would like. Endercase ( talk) 20:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
Endercase ( talk) 22:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
One more for you: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/10/30/0126246 198.189.140.15 ( talk) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I've cut the apparently unsourced claim that messages from twitted Citadel users "could only be seen by that user and administrators" - not sure if User:Jidanni added "by that user and" as common sense based on the article subject, or from a deeper dig through the sources, but the Coding Horror blog doesn't appear to actually say this, and the Metafilter discussion shouldn't be used as a source as it's just a forum chat.
From reading the thread, it seems like the system might have been more along the lines of automatically hiding all the user's messages, with admins having the option to make some of those messages visible again to everyone. I've added what I could find from some Citadel documentation, but further detail would be good here if we can find any. -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
It has been suggested by two users that I respect that I retire from this article for a while. I will do so. My above source list is fair game, of course. Sadly as this is still a "news" item and not a historical one finding more reliable (hindsight) sources may be difficult. The best one I think is probably this one: ( https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2808147), the pdf is online if you know where to look. I am always open for discussion. Good luck and may the force or whatever be with you. Document as many sides of the (cite-able) truth as you can find and all that. Endercase ( talk) 04:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Does Jeff Atwood, co-founder of Stack Overflow, meet WP:SPS as an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", to the point where we can cite his blog entry about the history of stealth banning? From a skim around the internet, he's written for Gizmodo on the subject of early bulletin boards. (Pinging User:JzG, who cut some content on the grounds that Atwood's blog is not an RS.) -- McGeddon ( talk) 11:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
An expert would be very helpful. We have very little documentation or information to cover an effect that effects everyone that interacts on any site that uses this feature.
"is heavily sourced" it has 8 listed sources, that is not heavily in my POV. There was a great deal of information that was removed recently, citing a lack of reliable sources. (with these tags that information may now be returned if you wish)
The very lack of coverage in and of itself is a "systemic bias problem". This is a censure based phenomenon that lead to apparent censorship (removal of information or input) and as such the lack of available reliable information, coverage, or explanation panders to that bias.
Baring logical argument that addresses these concerns the tags will remain. Endercase ( talk) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, Breitbart has done the most work on shadow banning, but editors are banned from citing it, because the censors here assert that it is “unreliable.”
As Maury Povich would say, “That… is a lie.”
I’ve read the “reliable” sources (New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), and I’ve read Breitbart, and Breitbart is much more honest, i.e., reliable. The term “reliable sources,” as used at Wikipedia is just a code phrase for, “media organizations whose politics we like,” whereas “unreliable” is code for, “media organizations whose politics we hate.”
Mentioning Breitbart in the same breath as Alex Jones’ Prison Planet is just meant to smear Breitbart through guilt by association.
Since the only source that has done serious work on shadow banning is one which is hated by the dominant clique here, there cannot be a properly-sourced article on shadow banning. Ergo, this article should be deleted. 2604:2000:9046:800:8D46:F708:7191:DF4C ( talk) 23:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a draft at User:Endercase/draft, it is nowhere near deployment but anyone can help work on it. Reliable sources are always appreciated. Endercase ( talk) 00:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Everybody uses THIS term, so use it here too, ignorant wikipediot ^ I concur. To those who doubt, this can easily be verified by performing a simple web search.
Google numbers: shadowban Vs stealthban 639,000 vs 6,990
"shadow ban" Vs "stealth ban" 314,000 vs 5,400
Google numbers are estimates always over-estimates in my experience, but a reliable rough guide to a terms popularity e.g. shadowban is used ~100 more than stealthban both in the concatenated form and when a space is forced between the words so that ratio seems reasonably stable too. I have no idea how to actually change the title of the page so if someone with more wikipedia experience can do that, it would be great. SilentBear ( talk) 23:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I just started the hellbanning article, and found it tough to find reliable sources. I will look more a little later today -- meantime, if anyone else can find reliable sources, that would be great. I checked Google News archives, Google Books and Google Scholar, but found nothing much. Thanks Sue Gardner ( talk ) 20:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
That's because this isn't UrbanDictionary.com... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.90.59 ( talk) 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the Unsigned IP that this isn't article worthy, but I've corrected the information on Stack Overflow; there's no such option on the site and I'm a mod on the network; there is no such tool and no evidence of such a ban ever occurring. The blog post referenced was a theoretical exercise. -- Sirtaptap ( talk) 17:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting that info on Stack Overflow! Although, question: how is this not article-worthy? Sure seems like it to me. Internet culture is a very article-worthy subject, and I imagine stealth-banning could easily prove controversial, as I doubt it hasn't already in other spheres of discussion.
--- It seems like a very interesting topic to me as well. For paid services it may even constitute false advertising, e.g. intentionally deceiving customers about the service they are purchasing, but I'm no legal scholar and rules laws vary in different nations. For reliable sources I have no idea why ppl are saying that reliable sources are difficult to find. I've read countless articles over the years about the practice, here are three articles discussing the practice in a bing news search I just did: https://www.business2community.com/instagram/instagrams-new-shadowban-hurting-engagement-01851139 https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/reddit-account-suspensions/ http://www.ubergizmo.com/2017/05/pokemon-go-cheaters-shadowbanned/ All of these are significant news sites in overlapping but different domains. A wikipedia article is definitely justified. What it is. How it is/could be done. History (claims, proofs, admissions/denials/abandonment). Legality etc. These are all interesting wikipedia worth topics. SilentBear ( talk) 23:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
In the last paragraph, in reference to Craigslist, the word ghosting is capitalised; is it a proper noun? Otherwise, it should be lowercase.
I suggest that the following is added:
WeChat was found in 2016 to ban posts and messages that contain certain keywords without notice. [1] [2]
In a study that looked at tweets from 2014 to early 2015, over a quarter million tweets were found during the one year period in Turkey to have been censored [3] via shadowbanning. Twitter was also found, in 2015, to shadowban tweets containing leaked documents in the US. [4] [5]
References
/Thank you for you time, Endercase ( talk) 01:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we can add instagram and pokemon go (Nintendo) as companies that allegedly use shadow banning based on my above article search: https://www.business2community.com/instagram/instagrams-new-shadowban-hurting-engagement-01851139 https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/reddit-account-suspensions/ http://www.ubergizmo.com/2017/05/pokemon-go-cheaters-shadowbanned but I haven't look into the details of any of those cases. In general, I think it would be good separate out companies that 1st party claim to employ shadow banning, 3rd party sourced claims, 3rd part controversy that falls short of direct claims, and any claims proven to be false. They all seem like distinct categories. SilentBear ( talk) 00:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
A section about the abusing of this system, and the criticism is missing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:1898:6146:674B:F726 ( talk) 02:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
+1 for critical section SilentBear ( talk) 02:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Shadow banning would be a better location for this article per WP:COMMONNAME. I will conduct the move per discussion above. Endercase ( talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The definition in the article seems to be focused of forum posts, but this isn't the only context in which shadowbanning is used. For instance this article https://thenextweb.com/gaming/2017/05/24/pokemon-go-update-trolls-cheaters-common-monsters/#.tnw_qThED78W uses it to describe a system where targeted users are banned from good random rewards, in that case good pokemon go monsters. Hiding a user's posts from the rest of the community is obviously an insufficient definition to include thenextweb's use of the term, and probably gaming in general.
Here are three elements I think the description needs to bring out. (1) Targeted content/user(s), the targeting method doesn't matter, but it must target so that some content/users and not others are affected (2) A change in the software behavior designed to be undetectable / difficult to detect (3) The change is intentionally designed to impede or negate the either the user's interaction and or the content's visibility (a bit rough but, that's why it is on the talk page, we need to be careful to describe element 3 in such a way that it doesn't include A/B tests and flighting that companies intentionally and invisibly creates differential treatment in order to test new algorithms. For example: a bug in the test algorithm may have the effect of negating users content in the test group, but that is NOT a shadowban bc shadowbanning is intentional) In the context of forums a shadowban could just be hiding the user's posts, but could be more extensive including ignoring their comment up/down votes, DMs etc.
I think youtube's restricted mode policy is an interesting case to examine. What makes this a nice example, I believe its existence is documented in 3rd and 1st party sources, and restricted mode targets content/users and hides it from other users (all nonlogged in use and logged in children) so it is quite similar in many respects, but if the content creator looks specifically in the right place, youtube tells them what is happening. So that isn't a shadowban right? Hypothetically it has a grey area too, what if the user has thousands of videos and youtube doesn't send a notification email that a video was placed in restricted mode. The user technically still has a way to tell, but it has been made quite practically difficult, making that hypothetical a semi-shadowban? It would be interesting to see if there are articles discussing/labeling this nuance. SilentBear ( talk) 02:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Another interesting gray area example is spam filters. They discriminate based on content and sometimes sender, e.g. known spam hosts. They also never (in practice) tell the content creator the final visibility status spam/inbox. Messages in the spam folder are technically visible to the receiver(s) but practically no-one looks in the spam filters anymore so intentionally putting things in there may qualify for semi-shadowban? SilentBear ( talk) 02:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-- Endercase ( talk) 20:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
New sources popping up. Endercase ( talk) 06:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Where is the ProjectVeritas Finding? Why is everything so suspectly old, there are Daily News in May '18. And where are the damn foreign versions? Why do you protect TWITTER with their own Lies??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.227.119.190 ( talk) 22:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
We should start gathering peer reviewed, and publicly reported evidence of shadow banning on twitter. Sadly, I can only find a very limited number of sources right now. Endercase ( talk) 17:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC) www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/16/exclusive-twitter-shadowbanning-is-real-say-inside-sources/ breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used www.infowars.com/proof-twitter-is-censoring-donald-trump-to-block-fundraising-efforts/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/07/twitter-shadowbans-censorship-and-antitrust/8173/ http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/16/14635030/twitter-shadow-ban-moderation Endercase ( talk) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The reliability of Breitbart and Infowars was called into question. I call for discussion. See Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva for more. Endercase ( talk) 22:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
And no mention of Facebook? Page administrators have this option openly.
Is anything currently being done to stop shadow banning? Also, is there a lack of information due to simply there not being enough instances of shadow banning? Brittany Mumford ( talk) 21:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed PragerU from the "Notable examples" section. RS support for "shadow ban" and "censor" terminology has not been provided. – dlthewave ☎ 01:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
An entire paragraph is dedicated to claims that rest solely on a debunked VICE News article. The NY Times explicitly says that VICE News misuses the term shadowbanning [1], and other RS also say that the VICE piece is wrong [2] [3]. Furthermore, the action construed as 'shadow-banning' by VICE also applied to left-leaning Twitter accounts. The content does not belong on this article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
In the last paragraph, it says, "Reportedly, an ad is placed, confirmation is sent that it has been posted." I would fix this myself, but I'm unsure what it's saying: "if an ad is placed, confirmation is sent that it has been posted"? Or is it saying something else?
It should be this: Reportedly, if an ad is placed, confirmation is sent that it has been posted."
ClariLynx ( talk) 23:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
and other sources make clear that there wasnt shadowbanning going on, and it wasnt unique to conservative accounts.
@ Snooganssnoogans: what was this supposed to mean? wumbolo ^^^ 15:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
From my reading of sources, "shadow banning" seems to have evolved into mostly a conspiracy theory. See for example:
Source: EXPLAINED: What is shadow banning? By BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP Technology Writer. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how shadow banning is a conspiracy theory. I think that this article needs to be brought up to date. There is clear evidence that the algorithms used by major social media companies to sort information for users demonstrates several biases [1] [2] - one of which is a bias towards liberal mainstream media content and/or thought and away from conservative content. One need look no further than this Huff Post article on the testimony of Zuckerberg regarding Internet personalities Diamond and Silk to see that Facebook actively suppressed their conservative "celebrity" account until there was sufficient public pressure applied to reverse that decision [3]. That's hardly a conspiracy theory. Wcmcdade ( talk) 17:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
References
I believe this is the series of quotes you may be looking for. From September 2017 to April 2018, Facebook insists that they had just made “an enforcement error” on an account with over 1 million followers?
“Zuckerberg responded by saying his team had “made an enforcement error, and we’ve already gotten in touch with them to reverse it.”” Wcmcdade ( talk) 23:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I moved the info about Twitter in 2018 from the paragraph in the Twitter 2014/2015 events [11], trimmed it [12], and then decided it would be better to just remove given the comments in the section above and the redundancy: -- Ronz ( talk) 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
In July of 2018, in response to allegations of shadow banning, Twitter's legal and product leads stated that Twitter does not shadowban accounts, [1] but that the platform's ranking model may have meant that certain Republican Representatives may been ranked lower by the auto-suggestion algorithm. [1] United States President Donald Trump has alleged that Twitter employs the practice, and has threatened an investigation. [2] [1] [3] [4] [5]
References
I did not go through the history to see how the redundancy was created, or if other solutions had been lost along the way. If nothing else, we might want to use some of the references. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to include information both critical of and also supporting Twitter's denial of banning that is borne out of the Project Veritas video as part of their #AmericanPravda campaign, titled, "UNDERCOVER VIDEO: Twitter Engineers to "ban a way of talking" Through "shadow banning," Algorithms to Censor Opposing Political Opinions. [1] This section should also include some of the other ways in which Twitter bans or filters content described as "Search Suggestion Ban", "Search Ban", "Thread Ban" and "Quality Filter Discrimination". [2] Wcmcdade ( talk) 16:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
References
This article from Vox may be enough to introduce the conspiracy theory aspect into the article. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:15, 11 September 2018
so I wouldn't trust anyone on shadow banning if they cite ViceAs I said, that alone doesn't impact the reliability of a source. It would depend upon how they use the citation, and if we rely upon anything related to the Vice citation...
I've gone ahead and added it [13] -- Ronz ( talk) 19:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
We are on content, its the fact that the article describes it as a conspiracy theory that is the main problem now. Why and how was it considered a conspiracy in any way? Vice and Vox are NOT reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.104.253 ( talk) 04:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)