0
0

[–] WhiteRonin [S] ago 

IP blocking has been done years ago and you end up with banning innocents in the sweep. Plus VPN's are a way around it.

Go to email based registrations? Nope, it's easy to create a new email. I've even gotten around free email registration blocks by finding a free email service that wasn't blacklisted.

The surest way to block somebody is to tie users to telephone numbers but who in their right mind would want to allow oauth for a site like this. I've gotten around phone number based registrations but it requires a burner phone. But after you burn that number you also have to hope that a verification is never needed.

I see where you are coming from but look at what you have to do and many people like to remain anonymous.

I totally agree that alts are a problem. Which is why I was trying to come up with a social engineered method. A ban is very in your face and confrontive. While blocking is a shadow method and blocked person would have to figure out if they got blocked or are just being ignored. If a lot of people "pretended" to block somebody and then pop out with "nope, you weren't" it always make them wonder the next time.

I do agree that this problem isn't easily solvable within the confines that most people would consider as being privacy friendly too.

0
1

[–] Talc 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

IP blocking has been done years ago and you end up with banning innocents in the sweep. Plus VPN's are a way around it.

IP blocking is the only technique which has ever proven to be effective, and it's proved itself on emails websites and forums. VPNs aren't a way around it, they're an ip address like any other. IMO your "innocents" are voluntary human shields once they fail to react to the ban, when I found that one of the services I pay for was blocked due to them not policing their own network I gave them 72 hours to end the abuser and when they failed to do so they lost a number of legitimate customers. Any service which prefers to shield an abuser rather than deliver services to paying customers deserves to go broke. At least one ISP has gone into administration due to preferring abusers to legitimate clients.

How it's supposed to work is that the site tempblocks the address where the abuse emanates, informs the ISP/VPN/Whatever, asks them to confirm they have got rid of the abuser. If the ISP/VPN/Whatever does not get rid of the abuser the address stays blocked. If the same abuse starts emanating from a second address at that ISP/VPN/Whatever then the broadest network allocation is blocked and the ISP is again given the opportunity to clean up. ISPs who are not interested in preventing abuse end up completely blocked, ISPs who care about their reputation are very communicative when they start seeing themselves blocked. This has been SOP at my work for at least 11 years to my knowledge.

The surest way to block somebody is to tie users to telephone numbers

Since the rise of VOIP services it's just as easy to get a new telephone number as it is to get a new email address, no need of a burner phone so that's another one which doesn't work anymore. I have telephone numbers in Washington DC, Toronto, London, doesn't actually cost me anything, and they all work any time my cellphone is able to find an internet connection. AFAIK there are no blacklists in existence for these so I could argue that getting a new phone number is actually easier than getting a new email address.

I do agree that this problem isn't easily solvable within the confines that most people would consider as being privacy friendly too.

I think it isn't solvable at all by any other method than hard banning of ip addresses in an attempt to influence behaviour. The problem can only be properly cured at the point where the abuser's money meets the abuser's internet connection as nobody else can reliably identify the abuser, any other measure only masks the symptoms. There is only one cure but apparently for voat's community the medicine is too bitter to drink. Shadow methods are even more bitter and less effective, there's so many people on here been affected by reddit's shadowban abuse that any suggestion of implementing shadow methods is likely to cause a massive outcry. Shadowbans were originally intended to be used against certain types of spambots which detected when they were banned and programatically switched to a new account in response, I think it's outright wrong to use that against people.

0
0

[–] WhiteRonin [S] ago 

  1. That works for large sites or spam senders. Voat ... Not so much. Plus how many IPs will respond to "he trolled me" blocks? IP blocking can work once all devices get dedicated IPs IPv6 is still being rolled out and we still have a few blocks left of IPv3 as of last year. Another few more years before you can pinpoint the exact user. For now I can switch from home to mobile or roll into Starbucks and get around an IP block. Or just go to another VPN.

  2. Good point t. Totally about services like Google's VoIP.

  3. My only argument here is one based on TV. If you don't like CNN nothing stops you from never changing to that channel again. It's shadow banning but on a per user preference. If you block a user personally you don't have to hear CNN spewing their narrative. You can do the same to Fox. A ban prevents people from posting which causes anger. If you block them they still get angry but if their votes get blocked from your totals then even a brigade can only talk shit about you. True, though, spawning a new alt is easy ... So rinse and repeat. I haven't seen @henrycorp got pinged brigaded.

I'm still thinking that blocks can be more effective in the long term since trolls have been socially engineered into the world of "ignored" rather than being "punished".

Note: I'm enjoying this discussion because it's obvious that you have thought about this alot. We seem to agree on some areas and others not and I'm actually appreciating the differences because they add to the conversation.