| Revision as of 22:08, 2 March 2017 editEndercase (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,855 edits →Twitter: Updated based on Alfredo Beltrán Leyva talk← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:40, 26 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,319 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Shadow banning/Archive 2) (botTag: Manual revert |
| (499 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet Culture |class=Stub |importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Internet |class=Stub |importance=}}I just started the hellbanning article, and found it tough to find reliable sources. I will look more a little later today -- meantime, if anyone else can find reliable sources, that would be great. I checked Google News archives, Google Books and Google Scholar, but found nothing much. Thanks ] (] ) 20:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}} |
|
That's because this isn't UrbanDictionary.com... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
I tend to agree with the Unsigned IP that this isn't article worthy, but I've corrected the information on Stack Overflow; there's no such option on the site and I'm a mod on the network; there is no such tool and no evidence of such a ban ever occurring. The blog post referenced was a theoretical exercise. --] (]) 17:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
Thanks for correcting that info on Stack Overflow! Although, question: how is this not article-worthy? Sure seems like it to me. Internet culture is a '''very''' article-worthy subject, and I imagine stealth-banning could ''easily'' prove controversial, as I doubt it hasn't already in other spheres of discussion. |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
<br> |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
=== Proper Noun? === |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Shadow banning/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
In the last paragraph, in reference to Craigslist, the word ''ghosting'' is capitalised; is it a proper noun? Otherwise, it should be lowercase. |
|
|
|
{{Archives}} |
|
|
|
|
== Confusing Sentence == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the last paragraph, it says, "Reportedly, an ad is placed, confirmation is sent that it has been posted." I would fix this myself, but I'm unsure what it's saying: "'''if''' an ad is placed, confirmation is sent that it has been posted"? Or is it saying something else? |
|
|
|
|
|
== Twitter == |
|
|
|
|
|
We should start gathering peer reviewed, and publicly reported evidence of shadow banning on twitter. Sadly, I can only find a very limited number of sources right now. ] (]) 17:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/16/exclusive-twitter-shadowbanning-is-real-say-inside-sources/ |
|
|
http://www.infowars.com/proof-twitter-is-censoring-donald-trump-to-block-fundraising-efforts/ |
|
|
http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/07/twitter-shadowbans-censorship-and-antitrust/8173/ |
|
|
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/16/14635030/twitter-shadow-ban-moderation |
|
|
] (]) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The reliability of Breitbart and Infowars was called into question. I call for discussion. See ] for more. ] (]) 22:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
|
