Why do websites shadowban people giving them the illusion their posts are being seen when they're not?
I think that's pretty cruel.
22-25, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
[c=004A59]I haven't heard of this practice. It sounds like a terrible idea. Part of the point of banning someone from a website, is to teach better behavior. If they don't tell someone what they're doing wrong, how the Hell do they expect them to learn and change?[/c]
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@SW-User I disagree and will explain why at the footnote of this reaction. I hope you have long pondered your view and strongly hold that view as I look forward to dismantling that view in my usual logical way. And then hopefully you will point out any error in my logic so that I will be better informed by the conclusion of anything we both have to say.
Since you didn't know about the various manipulations and machinations used by webmasters to propogate their mostly ill founded beliefs I will inform you that the shadow banning aspect even has a variety of levels. It is not banning a person altogether, and often done without the one it's being used on without anyone's awareness.
There are also other means that infringe communication between opinion sharing people. De-boosting posts with certain keywords and phrases from search results, for example. De-boosting can be done in conjunction with specific user profiles or across the board in results in search engines. Think of it as the opposite of keyword spamming, if you understand the many ways that is done. Text is in the page and made invisible to the reader yet acts as a qualifier in a collection of search results. De-boosting works like that and while the text is legible the web crawler is instructed by an if 'x is true' then 'limit y' to drop that result from ever appearing in a search result. So if a big search engine or a social site doesn't like you, and they probably won't if you disagree with their very public tyrannical policies, your name attached web publications will never be found in the top 500 results of their searches no matter if you have 10 informal fans detailing a very specific search or a million subscribers merely searching on your name. That's a ton of public related power and nobody in their sane mind would do that. Which means that there are some insane people in charge of big parts of the internet, by my way of thinking.
This also makes Google a publisher and a communications host and a odd form of governing body over humankind. That they don't yet recognize they have overlooked that with great power comes accountability means that they have already sealed a fate for themselves that nobody should envy.
Nuff said on that. Now to address your specific comment. I think it's wholly incorrect at best and at worst, typical megalomaniacal thought processing. Even God doesn't make bad manners a sin.
The web isn't a church or a moral teacher. If the other users avoid contact with or block a problamatic person, troll, or bully that bad example can serve as a lesson to younger members where the actual threshold of acceptable conduct exits the,so to speak ok to do, and enters the, shitposted by an idiot, gray.
Good manners are not something taught but something society learns through the human motive of positive results through observation. By imitating or replicating positive conducts we construct positive transactional results.
Brute force, while it temporarily serves the short life of slaves and their masters never gave anyone positive results or a good demeanor.
Since you didn't know about the various manipulations and machinations used by webmasters to propogate their mostly ill founded beliefs I will inform you that the shadow banning aspect even has a variety of levels. It is not banning a person altogether, and often done without the one it's being used on without anyone's awareness.
There are also other means that infringe communication between opinion sharing people. De-boosting posts with certain keywords and phrases from search results, for example. De-boosting can be done in conjunction with specific user profiles or across the board in results in search engines. Think of it as the opposite of keyword spamming, if you understand the many ways that is done. Text is in the page and made invisible to the reader yet acts as a qualifier in a collection of search results. De-boosting works like that and while the text is legible the web crawler is instructed by an if 'x is true' then 'limit y' to drop that result from ever appearing in a search result. So if a big search engine or a social site doesn't like you, and they probably won't if you disagree with their very public tyrannical policies, your name attached web publications will never be found in the top 500 results of their searches no matter if you have 10 informal fans detailing a very specific search or a million subscribers merely searching on your name. That's a ton of public related power and nobody in their sane mind would do that. Which means that there are some insane people in charge of big parts of the internet, by my way of thinking.
This also makes Google a publisher and a communications host and a odd form of governing body over humankind. That they don't yet recognize they have overlooked that with great power comes accountability means that they have already sealed a fate for themselves that nobody should envy.
Nuff said on that. Now to address your specific comment. I think it's wholly incorrect at best and at worst, typical megalomaniacal thought processing. Even God doesn't make bad manners a sin.
The web isn't a church or a moral teacher. If the other users avoid contact with or block a problamatic person, troll, or bully that bad example can serve as a lesson to younger members where the actual threshold of acceptable conduct exits the,so to speak ok to do, and enters the, shitposted by an idiot, gray.
Good manners are not something taught but something society learns through the human motive of positive results through observation. By imitating or replicating positive conducts we construct positive transactional results.
Brute force, while it temporarily serves the short life of slaves and their masters never gave anyone positive results or a good demeanor.