> We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile). And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.
It specifically mentions factoring in user behavior:
>What actions you take on Twitter (e.g. who you follow, who you retweet, etc)
> How other accounts interact with you (e.g. who mutes you, who follows you, who retweets you, who blocks you, etc)
How was Twitter hiding this?
[0]: https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2018/...
It prevents nefarious actors from easily probing the limits of their content moderation processes.
It really is funny how Musk is just taking Twitter back to the start.
I haven't seen anything here that indicates that it ever did exist.
Limiting reach is different from people not seeing your content at all.
Has someone compiled a dataset of users that appear to be shadowbanned, that tweet political content at least some of the time, as well as the political lean they have?
If we go up to the top comment in this chain we see
> Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter.
- Elon Musk
So... you're in agreement?
(btw, this isn't shadowbanning. Shadow banning would be 0 likes and 0 retweets and 0 views)
> t is very common to see people complain about being shadow banned on twitter, and not knowing for what, or why.
Actually this is my entire complaint with these Twitter Files. They show examples of people getting delisted but do not show the tweets that led to these decisions. That is a CRITICAL element of the story. We can't determine if Twitter was acting in good faith or not without this knowledge. We also have no idea if these examples are selection biased or not. Probably since there's only right leaning stuff and thefp.com is a right wing organization. Maybe Twitter does have a left bias (it probably does) but we sure aren't getting a fair shake.