There's a difference between "Sorry, your review violates our guidelines point XYZ because of the sentence ABC and cannot be posted. Please edit it and try again." and "Your review was successfully posted. (haha not really loser, but imma set up a comically elaborate charade to make you think it was.)" Both of them keep the profanity out of your eyes, but only one of them makes you likely to get the honest review in the first place because it doesn't treat the reviewer like an outcast.
> There's a difference between "Sorry, your review violates our guidelines point XYZ because of the sentence ABC and cannot be posted. Please edit it and try again." and "Your review was successfully posted. (haha not really loser, but imma set up a comically elaborate charade to make you think it was.)"
There is. The difference is that in the first case, the ranter will tweak their language and continue ranting about the fvcking a55h0les, while in the second case, they will go away quietly. The second outcome is _clearly_ the best for all concerned.
Even better, just shoot all undesirables. Why do we need prisons anyway, and what is rehabilitation? Just kill everyone the second they break the law, so they'll all go away. This outcome is _clearly_ the best for all concerned.
I'm not saying I agree with the parent commenter. But their point was not that they didn't want to see profanity, it was that they don't want to see anything at all from the type of people that use profanity. If that's you're position then shadow banning works well, whereas getting them to post reviews with profanity taken out does not.
And I'm saying that the profanity was not the only problem that caused the review to be shadow-filtered. Regardless of whether the system filters profanity or not, the fact that it filters them while pretending otherwise is the problem. If one supports the system that shadow-filters profanity, they're also supporting the system that shadow-filters "some other unidentified thing that seems perfectly fine", and thus leads to them not seeing reviews that contained useful information.
You think I can't write a review without profanity? Of course I can. I can be extremely polite while pointing out the issues I had with the business. That's exactly what I did when I realized this was happening. I just didn't know I was going to be held to that standard when I posted the review, and the system lied to me that what I wrote was acceptable so I had no reason to believe otherwise.
If you were relying on not reading reviews like mine because my use of profanity implied I was a jerk, well I'm sorry but your heuristic isn't going to work any more because I know now. It wasn't even hard for me to figure out, so I'm sure most of the jerks have figured it out too. So sorry if you were relying on that, but you probably can't any more.
Shadow-anything seems wrong. But the argument here is: "I don't want to see the reviews made by people who are vulgar" with the implied "I also don't want the system to ask them to remove profanity and post again, because I still think the review won't be useful to me".
The heuristic reasoning being: a review is of low value if it's written by someone who's default attitude is vulgar, regardless if that person is willing to correct self when requested.
The discriminator being: If a review has profanity initially, don't display it even if the review is improved. Also don't display other reviews by that person.
Not something I agree with, but it seems that's what user esperent meant.
> If you were relying on not reading reviews like mine because my use of profanity implied I was a jerk, well I'm sorry but your heuristic isn't going to work any more because I know now. It wasn't even hard for me to figure out, so I'm sure most of the jerks have figured it out too. So sorry if you were relying on that, but you probably can't any more.
And that's the idea behind shadow banning - the banned person is supposed to never become aware of the ban.
The purpose of shadow banning is to make it hard for violators to work around the restrictions. If the feedback loop is in the order of seconds, then the bad actor can quickly find a way to just pass the filter while still dumping the crap they want. The more cost each iteration incurs, the more the bad actor is deterred from doing that.
Of course, delaying the complaint and doing full shadow banning are still different things, and the former would suffice, but they chose the easy way out I guess, because their main objective is to keep the bad guys out.
