Sort of. It's like shadowbanning/hellbanning. It solves a lot of problems for moderators and prevents angry people from escalating the situation into actually being banned.

I've used it before as a moderator. For the above reasons, but mostly because I'm lazy and don't want to deal with angry people. Still censorship though. I think that ideally censorship ought to be communicated.

>because I'm lazy

Yeah, you described it well.

Start by understanding, Mr Moderator, there is a hell of a lot of difference between public posts and private messages.

Not if your goal is to censor a viewpoint. They are one in the same whether it's a viewpoint made in public or private - the main point of censorship is to not allow you to communicate certain thoughts. It amazes me that some posts here (not yours, but like the one you're responding to) have already seeded the censorship ground. For them it seems the question isn't whether it's ok to censor opposing viewpoints, but whether they should be told they've been censored. The censorship part is a-ok, but not if you're not informed?

*ceded

That was important, thanks.

I've moderated a forum before. Some people on the Internet are just crazy. If you ban them, they will come after you—maybe even in person. Shadowbanning on forums (setting aside the FB case) is sometimes abused, but it serves a vital purpose: preserving the time and safety of volunteer moderators.

Don't they just get twice as annoyed when they realize that not only were they banned, but they were silently banned and wasted time writing posts that went straight to /dev/null? The only time shadowbanning seems like a good solution is outright commercial spam and link farming, where slowing them down is a win in itself.

Surprisingly if you browse HN with "showdead" on, you'll find quite a few people don't realise. Others realise but keep posting comments they know most people won't read (you can tell in some cases because occasionally someone will mention their ban in comments).

(I browse with showdead on because the volume is small on HN, and every now and again you come across people in the former category who were shadowbanned for one or a few incidents relatively far in the past, who since then seem to have acted reasonable, where it's worth pointing it out so they can appeal their ban - mostly the flagged comments or shadowbans are well deserved, though)

I’ve run a forum for 15+ years and found shadowbanning vital in dealing with nutbags. As OP said, some people will pursue you personally and get obsessive. They have one forum they are obsessed with. You have thousands of users that are potentially like this.

Is it difficult to run a forum without the users learning your real identity? That seems like the way to go, but I have no experience with that sort of thing.

It would be possible, though if you participated a lot, you'd leave a lot of writing to be analysed. That would at least deter the casuals.

In my case, I post using my first name and most regulars would know who I am. It's a sports forum and people have recognised me at games, etc. I've had people look up my phone number and call me aggressively about things. I've had countless legal letters and threats. Someone doxxed my parents in the early days. You quickly learn how many unhinged members of society we have.

I think as some point you have to ask if moderating a forum is this important.

They get annoyed but not in the same way; the craziest want an audience and if you don't give it to them they generally move on.

"They get annoyed but not in the same way"

I would be carefuly about that.

"and if you don't give it to them they generally move on."

The craziest has lots of stuff going on. Lots of anger and hate. So if they decide, that you are their mortal enemy for shadow banning them, they might not move on.