Archived X Post : remove the ban function and replace with a solid blocking ability (voat.co)
submitted ago by WhiteRonin
Posted by: WhiteRonin
Posting time: 3.8 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 5/28/2017 10:00:00 AM
Views: 111
SCP: -1
1 upvotes, 2 downvotes (33% upvoted it)
Archived X Post : remove the ban function and replace with a solid blocking ability (voat.co)
submitted ago by WhiteRonin
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Talc 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
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.
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 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.
[–] WhiteRonin [S] ago
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.
Good point t. Totally about services like Google's VoIP.
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.
[–] Talc ago
None, shouldn't be trying to get anyone sanctioned for trolling. You'd be surprised how many will respond to an official block notice for flooding, spamming, ban evasion and other sorts of net abuse.
In just about every case where I've ignored a user and that user has had a rant at me, some "kind soul" has decided to fully quote that user's words in response, There are many users out there who delight in this form of low level trolling and will go out of their way to circumvent the ignore and make sure you see what you're trying not to see, some will even make it sound like they're trying to support you but the end result is the same. This has been going on since the 90s when usenet was the biggest "forum" and some of the trolls on there decided to elevate trolling to the level of performance art. The only way ignoring works is if you ignore the whole place and never return.
The abusers will very quickly learn to use different accounts to trash talk and downvote. You'll have the trashtalk accounts blocked but the downvote accounts will never say anything offensive to make you block them (although they might play the supportive "kind soul" as described above). Sure this might stop someone who dislikes you from casually downvoting one of your comments they come across at random because they can't be bothered switching accounts just for one downvote but it won't stop a determined abuser who will switch accounts and then dv everything you said for days.
Yes I have thought about this a lot, for many years, far longer than voat has existed, and I still can't find a solution other than the classic "block ipaddr and inform relevant abuse-desk" one. Anything else that anyone comes up with always has a flaw somewhere, is trivially circumvented, is absurdly processor intensive, slows the trolls but enables the spammers, impacts the users more than the trolls, etc etc. I do live in hope of someone finding some solution everyone else has missed which is why I keep joining conversations like this one.