In the real world, there's a difference between violent government and an internet forum.

Agreed, "chastising" people because they have a problem isn't going to help them. Some people don't know how to search effectively. Or... they could even have spyware that replaces their search results with "sponsored" services.

Sorry I'm late to the party but I was rather disturbed by some of the links regarding Reddit so I spent some time searching around. My conclusion is that while Slashdot has failed to hold my interest Reddit still does. I really enjoy some of the sub-reddits. For example during the Pluto flyby there was a wealth of information, much of it from people in or close to the field who had updates, photos, etc faster than anywhere but the physics forum to which I subscribe, and they complemented each other very well. I would not have gotten as full and rich of an experience without the both of them and this is but one example. Personally I could stand less censorship as true Free Speech is exceedingly important to me and as distasteful, even horrific, as the racist listings are on reddit, I think it is better to know they exist and the current state of such extreme and dangerous groups than to have them hidden to law-abiding, "normal" people. Moderation is an extremely rocky road and IMHO should always be a struggle as it is so important and filled with "grey holes".

Freedom of Speech is supposed to be difficult, embarrassing and offensive as well as joyful by it's very nature... and ours.

The problem you might be missing, or might not, is that the thought process behind shadowbanning is the same one that occurs in "disappearing" someone in the physical realm. Do you think that because it's on an "internet forum" that those thoughts can jump the gap into reality?

Just trying to understand your position. I think I know but maybe I'm wrong.

Sounds like you're a browser more than a participant. But let me ask you this question. If you do participate by posting on reddit have you ever felt the need to be careful about what you say or how you say it? Even in the slightest tiny bit?

If you don't think that's a good thing, then this forum isn't for you either.

I always try to think before speaking in verbal conversation, let alone posting on a forum.

You're missing the point. Presumably, you voice your opinions on line from time to time? Your opinions don't change offline, then change back again online?

My point is that "shadow banning" as you call it is, besides being somewhat unethical, completely open to abuse. If some admin wants to implement something of that sort, there's not much one can do about it except to vote with one's feet. Personally I would not be part of a community which used such tactics.

'Toxic' members were discussed, but where is the line drawn on that? There's the obvious trolls, but there's also people who the admins/moderators just don't like.

It also won't take long for someone to work out that such a ban is in place on their account. In many cases - can't they just post, log out and check to see if their posts turn invisible, use a proxy if necessary, etc? It seems to me like adding more challenging 'games' and badges of honour for trolls...

Shadow-bans don't seem any more open to abuse than regular bans. If there's a admin who's abusing their power, then them having access to shadow-bans or not isn't the actual problem.

Moderating a forum is hard work and you have to make hard decisions. You have to recognize people who are likely to be pushing away the sorts of people you want in your community. There's no silver bullet for keeping unwanted people out, but hopefully there's enough tricks that a community can survive the trolls and spammers.

I think the point that's being made is that it's not apparent to the user that (s)he has been shadow-banned, which (IMO) is the real issue.

You will have to elaborate, it's too vague.

It's worse than that. No one knows except the reddit censor. It is a symptom of a much larger issue.

An admin can issue an IP address ban, even on a range, but the user attempting to log in will realise they have been banned immediately. Same with a simple ban on the account itself or email address. This means that if a rogue admin banned this user and he knows it, he can at least report it to another admin or make other users aware of what's going on.

The type of ban you refer to is very different. It's deliberately conceived to deceive and trick a user into believing that he's simply being ignored.

Most people tend to believe in the fundamental right to justice, fair play and giving people the right to defend themselves from accusation. A website which uses tools to "disappear" it's members is not a good website - it says more about the website and the people running it than the members. It shows zero respect for members ("just a number") and shows that people are just treated as a disposable commodity.

I'm actually quite shocked that you could have found it "vague" when it was a follow-on to a point that I made days ago. But I'll reiterate.

You are complaining about the presence of community norms, of moderation, and of the expectation that you are supposed to think before posting. On Reddit.

This is a forum with community norms, with moderation, and with the expectation that you are supposed to think before posting. All of which are enforced both by the userbase and by the moderation team. If these are not qualities you like in Reddit, then you shouldn't be here either.

I'm also going to let you know, now, that I'm starting to feel less motivated to respond to you. In fact, it was a tough decision whether to write this response at all.

Are you representing "most people" today? I would certainly like evidence backing up such a claim. Though, it's also of no consequence: there's no right to use a forum. Reddit users have agreed, by definition, to follow the terms of use. A user who disrespects the terms isn't deserving of respect because they've broken the agreement.

I don't know what to extract from Reddit having shadow-bans. The site says it has 36 million users. The fact that they have shadow-bans at all seems to hint at regular bans being insufficient at that scale.

I'm going to invoke my own logical fallacy here, just for fun: 36 million users can't be wrong.