Why Is This Person Not [Shadow] Banned?
OK. I don't want to be the playground snitch, telling tales on other people here. But considering I've had HN accounts shadow-banned into oblivion in the past, just for making a single off-the-cuff remark that was deemed out of order, how come this person seems to be able to abuse the site with impunity, on an ongoing basis?
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=omiossec
Day after day, I see multiple posts fron this person [or bot?], every single one of which is spamming one of the same two websites and every single one of which has been flagged to death. Yet still they're allowed to carry on.
Genuinely curious.
18 comments
[ 14.2 ms ] story [ 53.7 ms ] threadstart complaining here too.
https://github.com/omiossec
Besides, people are often simply unaware that they were breaking rules or conventions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(I've redacted a name from the parent comment.)
the source in question has a somewhat expansive web presence, and activity, in any event thread is dead, and good thing too.
I wrote a longer explanation about this in a different context yesterday, in case it's helpful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25435283.
You guys all must have 'showdead' turned on in your profiles to even be seeing those submissions. The way HN works is: if you want to see all the things that software or moderators or user flags kill, you can do that by switching on 'showdead'. Conversely, if you've switched on 'showdead', then you're going to see all the posts that were killed. That's not people "abusing the site with impunity", that's you asking to be shown whatever abuse is out there.
(Also, the site guidelines ask you not to post like this, but rather to email hn@ycombinator.com. Can you please review them? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
While you're on this thread? What exactly are the guidelines for what gets flagged an ultimately killed? As well as the many patently obvious spam articles and snake oil adverts which show as 'dead' I see a fair few 'dead' submissions which look like completely legitimate articles the HN demographic would be interested in.
In fact that's one of the reasons I leave 'Showdead' ticked. Just because what gets an article killed seems so arbitrary at times. And I don't want to miss something that might be genuinely interesting.
Beyond that I'd need to see specific links to say anything meaningful.
1: [dead] Protect your S3 buckets from breaches (mklein.io) [0]
2: [dead] The NSA just released the preview version of Ghidra Debugger on GitHub (github.com/nationalsecurityagency) [1]
3: [dead] How to Write a Terminal Multiplexer with Rust, Async, and Actors – Part 2 (hashnode.dev) [2]
I'm not saying any of those is a fantastic article, or one that particularly interests me. But I can't see anything particularly 'wrong' with them in an abusive, spammy or 'irrelevant to HN's readership' sense. And, as I said before, there are usually at least one or two such submissions, which seem to have been killed for no apparent reason, on every page when browsing by '/new'.
Interesting you should say there's more complicated filtering going on behind the scenes because, from this side of the wizard's curtain, it does often look arbitrary, almost like people are flagging stories for personal reasons other than completely objective ones. And, as I said previously, one of the reasons I had turned 'showdead' on.
[0] https://mklein.io/2020/12/17/protect-against-s3-breaches/
[1] https://github.com/NationalSecurityAgency/ghidra/tree/debugg...
[2] https://github.com/NationalSecurityAgency/ghidra/tree/debugg...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Lots of forum software will pre-scan what you are about to post for keywords and ask "Your topic seems similar to these <list of posts>. Are you sure you want to create a new topic?"
It would be good if HN would do the same.
Mind you, given that so many people obviously think that; 12 or more hours after a major HN-flavoured story broke it's not worth checking to see if anyone already submitted it, before submitting it themselves --they'd probably still headbutt that Submit button anyway.