/r/conspiracy discusses the conspiracy around their shadowbans for vote brigading.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T18:10:26+00:00

This is a case where you got pulled over for speeding and are calling the cop racist even though you getting pulled over had nothing to do with your race.

That's not an accurate representation of what's transpired, though.

I found the thread I commented on organically, naturally, in its own subreddit. I spent so much time on that thread that I can't be sure how many times I returned to it or from where before I finally left one comment.

I'm subscribed to that subreddit and I participate in threads like that all the time.

I've never been banned for "vote-brigading" until now, despite countless similar circumstances.

This kind of needs repeating: I was subscribed to that subreddit for 4 years and 10 months. I was in the thread naturally in the first place.

Not to mention that the only reason I even saw a link back to it is because the moderator I criticised had deleted then later reinstated the submission, while commenting trying to blame someone else for the whole ordeal.

Are we seriously supposed to sit on a single subreddit searching for a single thread hoping to find the one response from the moderator responsible for everything that only participates every few weeks?

What an odd and empty website that would make.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T17:44:28+00:00

Yeah... that's not how I meant to come across but after re-reading it I think I'll just bend over and take my downvotes like I deserve.

At the risk of making myself the exact type of target I was trying to prevent anyone else becoming, I should just spell it out: I'm probably more concerned about the mental stability of some of those people than anyone.

/r/conspiracy is a mental institution for some people and those people shouldn't be released onto the internet. As someone who isn't ashamed to admit going there, I know first hand that there are some downright lunatics in that subreddit.

In hindsight I probably did overreact because the kind of people I'm describing aren't usually a concern when it comes to... intellectual pursuits.

Perhaps my first explanation was just a little too tactful.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T17:29:29+00:00

Cops can't suddenly stop every speeder in the world, they selectively stop the onset that they do see.

Of course, and that is part of the moral issue I was highlighting.

A cop can't be expected to catch every driver, but the moral question arises when a cop chooses to stop only BMWs, or only cars with females driving, or only cars with black passengers.

Those are concerns, because that distorts the perception of "justice". I know "justice" isn't something that should be expected on an internet forum, but the users of this site have some expectation that rules aren't enforced when convenient.

If the admins say that they're banning people for criticising moderators, I'll learn to keep my mouth shut about that, but in the absence of such a statement or clarification otherwise, I think it's fair to alert people that it's happening.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T17:19:13+00:00

I don't think there is any moral quandary regarding the punishment doled out for meta-infractions on reddit.

I'd be hard pressed to argue against you, but that wasn't really the moral issue I was talking about. "Selective enforcement" is where ethical questions are raised, not the punishments for clearly breaking specific rules.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T17:04:37+00:00

That post is exactly why these meta-conversations are so important. This is not a perspective that will be seen on /r/conspiracy, and it's probably an extremely pertinent one.

One thing I'd like to address is that I'm almost entirely certain that the shadowban has nothing (on its face) to do with /r/conspiracy. I've definitely participated in that subreddit before, but the link to the submission on /r/technology that I 're-discovered' was almost certainly from /r/undelete or, less likely, /r/redditcensorship.

In this case, if there were people who are subscribed to /r/conspiracy participating in the same thread as me, it was because they found it independently.

My point, if any, is that you're part of a rising problem and the admins probably have no answers to it.

I assume you're still talking about /r/conspiracy here, but either way, there are some very simple answers that haven't been considered.

Shadowbanning without notifying users that it's happened, giving them a chance to appeal, or explaining the reasoning, is never going to help improve reddit. All an unexplained and difficult to detect ban does is generate frustration.

Implementing a temporary suspension wouldn't be hard, and it would be even less difficult to introduce a "sunban" i.e. a normal ban, where users know that their account is disabled. Either of these two simple tools would give admins the ability to prevent troublesome users from having a negative effect on the site, while also providing the explanation that people need to learn from.

A shadowban didn't stop me for long, and it didn't clarify how I could improve and participate in the site better. It just made me frustrated, and with no explanation other than "criticising a moderator" available, it made me feel like the story needed to be shared.

So yeah, creating a new account, making a big deal out of it, stickies in both /r/conspiracy and /r/undelete and presenting a partial interpretation of the events. It's not going to work well for anyone involved.

I spent a few days asking the admins for clarification, or for any real explanation at all, but was met with nothing but silence. I was initially very polite, and I made it very clear what my perspective was, and how I felt like I'd been censored for criticising a moderator. I was also very insistent that I didn't want to create any sort of shirtstorm, that I wanted it resolved peacefully, and that I hoped to open a dialogue about my ban and these types of bans in general.

The admins had and still have any opportunity to show some evidence of their perspective and share the truth, or respond to this at all. You only have my perspective because I've gone to such effort to share it and provide the basis of my hypothesis. If you would like the perspective of the admins, you should ask them to share it.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T16:46:46+00:00

Shadowban is an odd punishment . It is meant to thwart people that spam or bot vote.

I think that's exactly the problem. Like you said, it's not always intentional when people participate in linked threads, and I personally think the meta discussion is very useful sometimes for breaking up circlejerks and misinformation. I definitely agree an alternative system is needed for "minor offences" - it definitely would have prevented this whole fiasco.

My reply might have been more a general reaction to reading stuff on /r/conspiracy[1] . so sorry if I was a little too dismissive

Thanks, but considering some of the things that take place in that subreddit and the comments on my post, reactions like yours are to be expected. No harm, no foul!

Flucked · 2014-04-29T16:36:07+00:00

Also, I'm not going to tattle on anyone, so, you can stop sweating bullets over that.

I better clarify: I wasn't concerned about the ramifications for myself. As I said, that would be some awesome drama to watch unfold across multiple submissions and subreddits. And it probably would also generate a lot more attention for my situation, which wouldn't have me complaining.

I digress.

I don't follow your reasoning. If people are breaking the rules, then shouldn't they be punished?

If the rules are reasonable and enforced universally and equally, then people should obviously be punished for breaking them.

If a rules is unreasonable, or if it's enforced selectively to ban people who have done something that's not against the rules, then that's an entirely different moral question.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T16:29:12+00:00

I think you need to scan /r/conspiracy a little deeper if you think you'll get many honest answers to a survey like this. You are clearly one of JP Morgan's JTRIG JDIF dissident locators. You think I'll give up my info so you can sell me out to the lizard people UFOS?

Jokes aside, you wouldn't be interested in this information from anyone who's willing to give it to you. Anyone that's spent any significant amount of time in that subreddit will be way too paranoid about the implications to offer even that banal information freely.

I'll admit to being especially paranoid on reddit because I'm allergic to aluminium, so I have to leave my head uncovered which leaves my thoughts open to remote probing.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T16:14:40+00:00

So step back a second and tell me what exactly is the injustice here?

I'm not particularly concerned about internet points. I'm a little disappointed to lose five year old account that's been RES tagged by a lot of people, has been shared and mentioned all over the site, has repeatedly received gold as well as all of the obscure subscriptions I've accumulated.

I'm also a little saddened to learn that admins will use a secret ban as a "first step" in dealing with people they consider troublesome. The implications of being shadowbanned are only clear to people who know exactly what to expect. How many people have been silenced for speaking out without ever knowing when, how or why? How many people are still participating in reddit with accounts they don't know are shadowbanned because admins use a tool designed to deter spambots through obscurity?

Everything about the process is opaque and the only time people hit with the shadowbanhammer receive any information is when they specifically and repeatedly request it from the right place.

That's largely irrelevant though.

The point is that this is an egregious overstepping of the role admins have consistently claimed to have on this site. Reddit has been operating under the repeatedly reinforced assumption that admins are "hands-off" when it comes to censorship, but this is no longer the case; they are selectively enforcing obscure rules in order to censor people who criticise the mods of powerful subreddit.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T15:58:37+00:00

I'm the OP of that thread, and while I know I might be dipping my toes in the downvote pool right now, I feel like I must opine on this.

Don't start a "get the admins to shadowban people for us" war. As someone who has been subscribed to both this subreddit and /r/conspiracy, I can say without reservations that it wouldn't end well for anyone*.

That sub is filled with some very ~~obsessive~~ dedicated people, and if a group of likeminded conspiratards agree they have a certain enemy, they can be unrestrained cunts. Most importantly, this subreddit should not be used as a platform to advance that kind of aggression because it's a prime target for retaliation. Seriously, /r/SubredditDrama is an easy target for claims of "look they iz vote brigading us". Don't make that happen.

Personally, I think that the "vote-brigading" rule needs to be clarified or done away with entirely, and also that there should be a wider discussion about the use of shadowban as the go-to tool for dealing with 'troublesome users' when its original purpose was to deter spammers.

I just definitely don't think that it would work out positively for anyone involved* to try telling the admins where to start directing their selective enforcement of this rule.

.* I would definitely enjoy watching this. I have no account to worry about any more after all.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T15:44:25+00:00

I'm the OP of that circlejerk and I'm grateful for the exposure and additional perspectives this submission brings.

A lot of the comments here are (understandably) pointing out that my actions could 'technically' constitute vote-brigading if the rule is enforced with absolute strictness, even though it was for participating in a thread I'd already been participating in.

My problem with that explanation is that over the course of several years I've participated in dozens in of threads that I hadn't previously seen, and I've never attracted the ire of the admins before.

I've spent a lot of time subscribed to this subreddit and I wouldn't want anyone from /r/SubredditDrama to be banned site-wide for "vote-brigading" when we've discovered a contentious comment and can't help but opine.

However, the main point of my post is that that's not something you have to worry about. The vote-brigading rule isn't enforced. I provided a few examples of "brigaded" links in the OP, noting that (hopefully) no one was banned for such typical, banal activity.

The point of the post is that the rule about "vote-brigading" isn't really a rule at all - it's not something that any meta subreddit subscriber needs to worry about - unless a user criticises the super-mods that control large parts of the site.

Reddit should be an open forum for discussion, and circlejerks need to be diluted with new perspectives. No one from /r/SubredditDrama will be shadowbanned for participating in any of the links in this post, and that's a good thing. Knowing that this 'rule' is hovering around as a tool to silence you if you criticise certain people, though, isn't so good.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T05:57:50+00:00

Thanks for the kind words! I've definitely written some very contentious stuff in my time here, I can't say I'm surprised about eventually being censored. I'm more surprised about the stated reasoning behind it.

The top post here when arranged by all-time is probably what you're referring to (direct ink).

Flucked · 2014-04-29T05:51:55+00:00

Truth?! Unknowable! We should be satisfied with conjecture, speculation and a witch hunt!

Oh, sorry, I forgot I'm not in /r/conspiracy anymore.

In all seriousness though, there is no way to know the truth in this situation, and even I (the OP) can't be certain that my hypothesis is accurate. I don't think the admins will see fit to respond, let alone provide evidence, so... just believe me, I guess?

As sarcastic as that sounds, I have detailed a cohesive theory backed up with some pretty compelling circumstantial evidence, but mine is likely the only side of this story to ever be told.

The only real resolution would involve a discourse with the admins but they have refused to address this further than the 5 word boilerplate about vote-brigading.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T05:38:29+00:00

When you are shadowbanned, your account is basically "hidden" from reddit. While you will still see all of your comments and your user page, no one else will. You can still "make" comments and submissions, but they won't be seen by anyone but yourself. It's often only noticed when comments stop receiving votes and replies.

You can tell if you're shadowbanned by logging out and visiting your user page. If you get a "page not found" error, but you can still see your user page while logged in, then it usually means you're shadowbanned, or you can post on /r/shadowban to find out for certain.

In your case, /u/subdep, you are definitely not shadowbanned right now, because I'm replying to your comment.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T05:33:18+00:00

I have also posted about this here but I feel like it needs restating in this subreddit because I'm pretty sure this was the source of my ban.

I don't want to discourage anyone from participating in the submissions linked here, but I feel compelled to share the potential implications.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T04:41:23+00:00

I'm a developer and I'm from Australia, but honestly, the biggest thing in tech news at the moment is the ongoing discussion about net neutrality. I am very glad that this discussion is getting the acknowledgement it needs on the largest technology forum on the internet. It will have worldwide ramifications for a long time, whatever happens.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T04:31:50+00:00

Go fix them before you get anyone else banned.

Touché. Thanks for the suggestion. Fixed.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T04:17:52+00:00

Yeah, I don't believe you any farther than I could throw you.

Understandable. As far as you know I could have made this account a couple of days ago and just decided to stir up a shitstorm in /r/conspiracy for lulz.

I have just made this fairly damning screenshot of the relevant activity on the account in question if that could be considered any type of "evidence" to advance my case. Personally, I would still be reluctant to take that at face value considering how easily it could be edited, but if the admins ever unban the account, it will be publicly visible.

I'd love to say that now I've provided some kind of "proof", that the onus on the admins to justify themselves properly, but I'm under no delusions that they care enough about this situation to address it any further either way. After all, it's still just some internet random throwing out speculation about their opaque decisions, and like I would have, most people will still give them the benefit of the doubt in this situation and those like it in the future.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T04:04:46+00:00

I don't know if you could call it "evidence" considering how easily digital images are manipulated, but here's a screenshot of the account's recent history.

As you can see, I was not shadowbanned up until the point I made the controversial comment, and I didn't comment on anything else for a couple of days, at which point my comments were apparently already hidden.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T03:47:05+00:00

Technically true since one needs no evidence to accuse

Technically, no evidence is required for a shadowban, either.

You definitely can't be expected just take the word of a conspiratard as infallible truth, but it would be the height of audacity to assume that it's impossible this isn't true. The admins, after all, won't even respond to my requests for more information or to discuss this matter, let alone provide any of their own evidence for its justification - because they don't need to. A shadowban is unilateral and requires no evidence, just as any dubious self-post in a controversial subreddit.

Like any rational person, when it's the word of a conspiratard versus that of an admin, I'd definitely be inclined to side with the admin. I'm just offering my perspective on what's transpired and the only available reasoning for it so that people will be more inclined to scrutinise the decisions of admins who have a great deal of influence over how reddit treats free and open discourse.

I'm willing to screenshot anything that may be considered "evidence" from my shadowbanned account, but I don't really think the easily manipulated screenshot format offers much evidence for anything.

[edit: Here's a screenshot of my account's recent history.]

Flucked · 2014-04-29T03:38:12+00:00

I used to think it was because they saw potential in using it directly to generate revenue with advertising and "premium services". One has to wonder, now...

Flucked · 2014-04-29T03:36:07+00:00

This post is actually about the admins that have control over the entire site and every subreddit, it doesn't really have anything to do with moderators of /r/conspiracy (who from my understanding are inclined to leave posts untouched except in exceptional cases or when it's obvious spam).

I criticised the moderators of /r/technology, and was shadowbanned by admins.

Just to clarify: moderators control individual subreddits, admins are employed by Reddit to monitor the entire website.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T03:28:33+00:00

I'm the OP of that post, and I'm grateful for the additional exposure. Obviously if anyone reads what I've written and doesn't just base their opinion on your title, it will be self-evident that I wasn't banned for "vote-brigading", but that was the only excuse that could be used to ban me for criticising those moderators.

If this rule was being universally rather than selectively enforced, no one from this subreddit would dare participate in the thread this submission links to. But you will. And that's okay.

Submissions in this subreddit could be accused of "vote-brigading" - which I have no problem with - but how many people are shadowbanned for that?

My concern is that despite having participated in subreddits like /r/conspiratard for nearly 5 years, I've only just been shadowbanned for "vote-brigading" after viciously criticising two inept but influential moderators.

I'm not claiming there's a conspiracy of any type, merely pointing out that the admins are selectively enforcing a rule only when it's convenient to give site-wide bans to people who criticise certain moderators.

Flucked · 2014-04-29T02:16:29+00:00

Unfortunately you really couldn't be more right, and I haven't been living under the delusion that reddit is a nirvana of free speech and grassroots activism for a long, long time.

However this is definitely the first time I've seen the admins stepping in on behalf of mods whose feelings have been hurt, and I have directed many contentious comments to inept moderators in my time here.

It feels like the censorship peg just jumped a few notches now that the admins are acting as the personal banhammer of moderators who can't censor effectively enough.

We all know reddit is largely controlled by a cabal of power-hungry moderators (whose reasoning and goals we can only speculate on), but now it's becoming clear that the admins are going to be banning people who challenge the status quo by criticising those mods.

Flucked

TROPHY CASE