More
6

Shadowban users posting obvious spam instead of just banning them. Banning accounts just leads to more spam accounts, and we have no account creation restrictions in place. If they are shadowbanned, they might not create new accounts and they will carry on posting with their shadowbanned spam accounts.

If we are going to implement this, I think it is important to have a clear definition of what we mean by spam. I am not talking about people posting off topic things in the wrong sub, or people making a one off spam post trying to plug their youtube channel on /s/gaming or something, I'm talking about users like mallow and jacknight that are constantly posting stupid shit and not contributing at all.

Reddit's policy on shadowbanning is fucked up, but I think it could clear up any potential spam problems if it was used in the right way.

Edit: If this is implemented, I would suggest not putting this in the TOS or anywhere else. Don't let the shadowbanned spammers know that they have been shadowbanned, or it undermines the effect of shadowbanning.
Shadowban users posting obvious spam instead of just banning them. Banning accounts just leads to more spam accounts, and we have no account creation restrictions in place. If they are shadowbanned, they might not create new accounts and they will carry on posting with their shadowbanned spam accounts. If we are going to implement this, I think it is important to have a clear definition of what we mean by spam. I am not talking about people posting off topic things in the wrong sub, or people making a one off spam post trying to plug their youtube channel on /s/gaming or something, I'm talking about users like mallow and jacknight that are constantly posting stupid shit and not contributing at all. Reddit's policy on shadowbanning is fucked up, but I think it could clear up any potential spam problems if it was used in the right way. Edit: If this is implemented, I would suggest not putting this in the TOS or anywhere else. Don't let the shadowbanned spammers know that they have been shadowbanned, or it undermines the effect of shadowbanning.

12 comments

[–] PhunkyPlatypus 5 points (+5|-0)

I agree that shadowbanning is a useful tool to combat spam accounts.

However as seen in the past, it's easily abused and sometimes legit users get caught in the flak.

I think it should be mentioned in the TOS though, few spammers actually read that and it would seem shifty not to address it.
[–] PMYA [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

A while ago I proposed having a spam report system that junior admins and above would have access to. Shadowbanning could also have something like this implemented where everyone who is junior admin and above can see it and discuss it on a private sub or something before a users is shadowbanned. Hopefully it will reduce the amount of legit users being shadowbanned in the future.
[–] ashekchum 5 points (+5|-0)

I really think shadowbans, are a sketchy policy and don't support their use/implementation.

If your going to ban someone tell them.
[–] PMYA [OP] 4 points (+4|-0)

I don't support shadowbanning normal users. Check out mallow's profile. It's nothing but spam.
[–] InnocentBystander 3 points (+3|-0)

I'm not sure how well it would work.
Once the spammers are aware of shadow-bans, it is not hard for them to check. It could be scripted easily.

rEddit found that it did not work on spammers, after the spammers found out. But that it did work against genuine users. I'm not sure we need a tool like that.

I think at this point, mods can keep up with the spam. Later, maybe something like a minimum of 3 phuks to be able to post. 3 would be simple to get with an introduction post. But that would wreck the spammers.
[–] PMYA [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

I'm sure it wouldn't trick every spammer, but it's going to catch some of them. It is not hard to differentiate between a normal user and someone who is posting nothing but spam - and I do think that this is the only case in which it should be used.

I'm not sure about posting restrictions. People weren't happy when Voat started that 10 posts per day thing.
[–] InnocentBystander 3 points (+3|-0)

I'm sure it wouldn't trick every spammer, but it's going to catch some of them.

Agreed. But if it's only going to catch a few, I'm not sure it's worth the effort, considering it's history of abuse at other sites. Other means will still be required.

I'm not sure about posting restrictions. People weren't happy when Voat started that 10 posts per day thing.

It would only be a one-time restriction for brand new accounts. Once they get a couple votes, it'd be gone forever.
I know it's not ideal, but I believe it would be highly effective against spammers and it's the only idea I'm aware of that hasn't been tried yet. It could be made a sub option so that subs for introductions can still be submitted to by new accounts. And any other subs that choose to disable it.

It wouldn't have to be always in effect. Subs could turn it on when the spam volume is high, and turn it off again when things are better.
[–] PMYA [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

I think it could be problematic for a couple of reasons. One is it's going to be difficult for new users to figure out where they can post to stop the posting restrictions on their account. Another one is there are going to be a shit ton of introduction posts flooding /s/all if we get even a small amount of traffic.

It's hard trying to come up with a restriction that is not going to be irritating for new users and stop spammers at the same time. Ideally, someone should be able to create and account in a few seconds and immediately start posting, which is why I am more in favour of shadowbanning persistent spammers rather than placing restrictions on posting. I wouldn't like to have anything similar to Voat's negative CCP restrictions either, because it's far too easy to use brigading to shut down someone's account.
[–] Boukert 1 points (+1|-0)

It's a double edged blade. Abuse of this power is very dangerous.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae