Talk:Shadow banning/Archive 1

revert
I reverted following the 1RR policy. See WP:PGBOLD.Endercase (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My revert was countered by User:Trivialist without discussion. They were following the "Ban" and were not aware that it is being challenged. Hopefully, they will revert their changes and bring their POV here or elsewhere in the discussion. Endercase (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was removing sources generally considered unreliable. Per WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Neither Breitbart nor Infowars meet these standards. Trivialist (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Neither Breitbart nor Infowars meet these standards." is POV and does not reference context. Please try again. Endercase (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, past RSN discussions demonstrate clear consensus that Breitbart is not normally a reliable source for statements of fact, and the idea of calling Infowars a reliable source is absurd. Please stop adding them to this article unless you can get consensus for their inclusion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You do not currently have the right to ban sources out of context. If you would like that right I suggest you try to change policy. Endercase (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that calling a source reliable or unreliable constitutes a violation of NPOV? Trivialist (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSN "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Any consensus there must be made in context this likely stems from NPOV. Trivialist the consensus your refer to comes from WP:RSN. Endercase (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Discourages protest"
- in your edited lede sentence describing stealth banning as the act of blocking a user from an online community in such a way that discourages protest or even realization of its occurrence, is "discouraging protest" really a meaningful part of stealth banning? If I'm stealth banned from a site and discover this, my ability to protest the fact seems no different to if I'd been banned overtly - I create a new account (or turn to a different site) and protest there. I can't see offhand that the sources talk about "discouraging protest" as an effect of stealth banning. --McGeddon (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the entire point behind stealth banning as opposed to other types of censure. It is meant to as be undetectable as possible in order to manipulate public perception while causing the fewest number of support tickets, public ethical debates, and lost users (advertising $$$): all forms of protest. It is very well documented within the community, just not in public, apparently. As I have not found a publicly available source that references this directly, you may of course remove it. Modern forms of SB do not attempt to make the user leave the site, that was a portion of the developments that occurred when SB started to be used to manipulate public perception instead of just remove toxic users. Once I find more documentation on Twitter that should become very obvious. Slight changes to hashtags in order to prevent trending, removal of the certain hastags from search etc. Reddit even claims that their current SB system is for use on bots only despite the fact that large number (see Reddit sources above) of actual users gets affected each day. Many of these modern sites will not admit to using SB on humans, despite the fact that it is easily tested and replicated in the field once you are aware of it. I agree that "If I'm stealth banned from a site and discover this, my ability to protest the fact seems no different to if I'd been banned overtly", but the point is that the vast majority of users don't discover it when it is working properly. Endercase (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure I can see how this is "discouraging protest", but if as you say there is no source for it, I'll revert it back for now. --McGeddon (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll go find sources. Also if you would like please review the sources above and somehow mark ones you think I shouldn't use. Endercase (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * McGeddon Xenforo uses the term "User Discouragement" when referring to their implementation of this feature. I think that is very accurate. "The user discouragement feature subjects users to random errors, delays, and pages, simulating failures in the system behavior..." I think using the term "discourages" is accurate. I think that "discourages protest" can read as POV and unnecessarily negative, but I would like to convey the idea that it is used as a suppression tool. There is an issue with the term protest, what do you suggest we use instead? Endercase (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Why I used those sources: no longer meta
Those sources (Breitbart and Infowars) are the only "media" outlets I am currently aware of that have been the "victims" of Shadow Banning while also having reader name recognition. As such have published the most "news" and "documentation" about the phenomena. Additionally, the information I used from those sources can be easily verified by independent research (which I can not cite). @ Trivialisttalk Endercase (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there any other sources reporting on their presumed shadowbanning? (Using "presumed" only because I have no idea if it's actually happening or not; I don't mean it as snark. Also pinging Mx. Granger; not sure if notifications are generated by talk links alone). Trivialist (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No snark implied. I understand skepticism. I can cite particular tweets and provide screenshots and I have been looking for better sources. So far I have hearsay (and screen shots) that twitter is blocking minor competitors. And this that says twitter is attempting blocking hate speech by banning right commentators. But those articles are the only non-blogs ones I have found so far talking the shadow banning of campaign funding tweets. Anyway, got to go. I'll be back.  Endercase (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also you may want to check that user's edit history. They likely don't want to talk about context. Endercase (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Trivialist I am getting really frustrated as to finding the sources. As this phenomenon is meant to be as undetectable as possible I am still only finding right-leaning ("banned") media sources. I am finding lots of blogs and posts on the issue but as far as finding anything "respectable" it is very difficult. Endercase (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you at least give me a list of "bannned" sources? Is this good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endercase (talk • contribs) 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know of a list of "banned" sources, but searching the Reliable sources/Noticeboard archives (via the search box on that page) can help show what, if any, general opinion exists about specific sources. Fortune in general should be fine, but that specific article is about actual banning, not shadow banning. The Hill article is probably OK, though it might be considered an opinion piece, based on the disclaimer at the end ("The views of Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.")
 * With regard to your difficulty in finding "respectable" sources about shadowbanning of right-leaning accounts, I believe the Wikipedia view would be that, if reputable reporting can't be found on something, then it shouldn't be included. Trivialist (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My difficulty in finding sources is not limited to that: see facebook tab. I believe that should be included as it marks the first recorded proveable domestic intentional limiting of political speech even of political figures on social media. Endercase (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Glancing at the list of sources below, forum posts on websites like Facebook and Reddit are unlikely to be reliable for this article. Blogs are only likely to be reliable if they're written by someone who is a recognized expert in the field (see WP:BLOGS). I also want to echo Trivialist's suggestion of searching the RSN archives for past discussion to get an idea of whether a source is generally reliable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Questionable Source dump
Endercase (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

One more for you: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/10/30/0126246 198.189.140.15 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thank you. The links they have embedded are nice. Endercase (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Citadel BBS
I've cut the apparently unsourced claim that messages from twitted Citadel users "could only be seen by that user and administrators" - not sure if User:Jidanni added "by that user and" as common sense based on the article subject, or from a deeper dig through the sources, but the Coding Horror blog doesn't appear to actually say this, and the Metafilter discussion shouldn't be used as a source as it's just a forum chat.

From reading the thread, it seems like the system might have been more along the lines of automatically hiding all the user's messages, with admins having the option to make some of those messages visible again to everyone. I've added what I could find from some Citadel documentation, but further detail would be good here if we can find any. --McGeddon (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an important distinction as one sounds like coventry and not tradional stealth banning. I'll look for more information on this "twit room". I thought it had been properly sourced, guess I should have looked deeper. I'll remove the reference under variations for now. Thank you for the heads up. Endercase (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I added it as a stopgap to allow the article to make sense pending others delving deeper, which thankfully they now have. Jidanni (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry
It has been suggested by two users that I respect that I retire from this article for a while. I will do so. My above source list is fair game, of course. Sadly as this is still a "news" item and not a historical one finding more reliable (hindsight) sources may be difficult. The best one I think is probably this one: (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2808147), the pdf is online if you know where to look. I am always open for discussion. Good luck and may the force or whatever be with you. Document as many sides of the (cite-able) truth as you can find and all that. Endercase (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Atwood
Does Jeff Atwood, co-founder of Stack Overflow, meet WP:SPS as an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", to the point where we can cite his blog entry about the history of stealth banning? From a skim around the internet, he's written for Gizmodo on the subject of early bulletin boards. (Pinging User:JzG, who cut some content on the grounds that Atwood's blog is not an RS.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a primary self-published source. He's not an authority on trolling or measures to control it, as far as I can see, though you could show some evidence of that if you like. If he's quoted in a third party RS saying these things then of course it would be fine, the issue here is that we don't get to decide that because Xhas some relevant expertise, thus X's opinion is valid on this and thus we can source X's opinion direct to his own blog. You have to meet a fairly high bar - like being the go-to source for interviews on a thing - before we'd do that IMO. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Please provide specific evidence that calls into question the reliability of this particular source in context. Endercase (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your logical fallacy is: Reversed burden of proof. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, you made the initial (non-good faith?) claim that that source was not reliable, by removing cited information, it is up to you to argue that stance. Endercase (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

multiple issues
An expert would be very helpful. We have very little documentation or information to cover an effect that effects everyone that interacts on any site that uses this feature.

"is heavily sourced" it has 8 listed sources, that is not heavily in my POV. There was a great deal of information that was removed recently, citing a lack of reliable sources. (with these tags that information may now be returned if you wish)

The very lack of coverage in and of itself is a "systemic bias problem". This is a censure based phenomenon that lead to apparent censorship (removal of information or input) and as such the lack of available reliable information, coverage, or explanation panders to that bias.

Baring logical argument that addresses these concerns the tags will remain. Endercase (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * YOu might want to read WP:OWN. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree the article needs more content, particularly if we're throwing out Jeff Atwood's history of stealth banning as a source, but why does this need an "expert" to attend personally? The expert needed tag is for "when you have identified a specific issue that requires help from a subject-matter expert (not a generally knowledgeable Wikipedia editor)". Is there one?
 * There's only a single sentence in the article that lacks a source, the article does not need "additional citations for verification" at this point.
 * What viewpoints do you think the article is neglecting? Those of people who think that stealth banning doesn't work? --McGeddon (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * An expert should be able to tell us if Jeff Atwood is reliable in this context better than any generally knowledgeable Wikipedia editor. That in and of itself would be helpful.
 * I don't think I own this article, I just believe in consensus. Per WP:OWN: "try to ignore disruptive editing by discussing the topic on the talk page."
 * We do lack a criticism section, that is a valid point we have been neglecting (I hadn't thought of that).
 * I think that people's whose view that stealth banning should be thoroughly documented is the main POV we appear to be suppressing.
 * "does not need 'additional citations for verification' at this point."-- then we should re-add the removed information don't you think? ;)
 * --Endercase (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Regular Wikipedia editors are able to establish out the reliability of sources (in talk page conversation or at WP:RSN), we don't need an expert for this. (If we had to find an expert to tell us whether a source was written by an expert, we'd quickly trip over ourselves.) I agree it'd be nice to see a more complete article here, but "we are suppressing the POV of people who want a more complete article" and "this needs additional citations for the content which hasn't been written yet" are confusingly oblique ways to say that. --McGeddon (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't really that confusingly oblique, (you misquoted me btw). Especially when you consider that the person who disagrees with us is one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia and the [| literal founder of the Rouge Admin Cabal.] Endercase (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just meant those as summaries of what you seem to be saying. There's no template for making an article more complete - it's generally taken as read that any shortish article should be expanded as much as possible. These are misuses of unrelated templates: refimprove says "Don't use this tag for articles that contain no unreferenced material", too few opinions is for "articles for which significant, non-WP:FRINGEy different perspectives are reasonably believed to exist" (not where editors might have different opinions about the article). --McGeddon (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I will just try again to stay out of this (as I mentioned above). Both of you are hardcore experienced editors. I am out of depth when it comes to arguing about what should and should not be done here. I am bewildered by [JzG's removal of cited information] without specific explanation even after being challenged. This article needs to be expanded (IMO) but I don't think we can do that while (apparently contentious) information is removed, instead of adding citation needed tags. I added the tags mentioned above to attract other editors as we seem to not have a quorum. I did not think their addition was really contentious, even after they were removed once. I thought they were relevant as I laid out with my specific wording above. The addition of the tags was not meant to become a real issue. Please tag me if you would like further input from me on these topics. I am scared that my interactions here (on this article) will lead to punitive measures despite my good faith attempts the help the encyclopedia and build consensus, due to my apparent lack of understanding. Endercase (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What specific explanation is needed for the removal of obvious WP:OR? Guy (Help!) 23:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Endercase, what you are saying then is that expert needed means "please bring someone who will give me what I want because I cannot argue my own case within Wikipedia policy". But Wikipedia does not recognise experts any differently form any other editor. What matters is reliable independent secondary sources, and absence of those is the entire problem here. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The expert you appear to take issue with is within the defined terms for a RS even if self published. As they are speaking to their area of expertise, and about their own personal history. Your accusations here once again IMO fail to assume good faith. I have read a number of your interactions and that is a common theme, that has been brought up multiple times. I could argue policy with you further (as I have been doing), but given your history that could be very dangerous for my account. It appears as if a significant number of editors who have done so in the past are now perma-blocked. Endercase (talk)
 * Getting tired of pointing this out now. You declare him an expert on this subject, but have failed to do the one thing that would allow his comments to be included without controversy, which is to cite reliable independent third party sources to support the content. t's not about who he is, it's about WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?
Apparently, Breitbart has done the most work on shadow banning, but editors are banned from citing it, because the censors here assert that it is “unreliable.”

As Maury Povich would say, “That… is a lie.”

I’ve read the “reliable” sources (New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), and I’ve read Breitbart, and Breitbart is much more honest, i.e., reliable. The term “reliable sources,” as used at Wikipedia is just a code phrase for, “media organizations whose politics we like,” whereas “unreliable” is code for, “media organizations whose politics we hate.”

Mentioning Breitbart in the same breath as Alex Jones’ Prison Planet is just meant to smear Breitbart through guilt by association.

Since the only source that has done serious work on shadow banning is one which is hated by the dominant clique here, there cannot be a properly-sourced article on shadow banning. Ergo, this article should be deleted. 2604:2000:9046:800:8D46:F708:7191:DF4C (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at the references of both this article and above Endercase's draft? There appears to still be usable material.  As for "politics we hate", there are more objective reasons than alleged hatred, and the reliable sources noticeboard is where to discuss that, not here.  —  Paleo  Neonate  — 02:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically, they should be able to be used as a source here (though, you likely saw my attempt at that). I understand your defeatist attitude though, but why should we give up? Providing reliable (non-primary) information is the core of Wikipedia. Endercase (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Draft
I have a draft at User:Endercase/draft, it is nowhere near deployment but anyone can help work on it. Reliable sources are always appreciated. Endercase (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You may have to merge into this article the additions of your draft, we don't usually delete/replace articles or preserve duplicates (I'm not sure if there are exceptions). Thanks, —  PaleoNeonate  (talk) — 01:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't edit this article. Though I have no COI and I am not an expert or a researcher in this topic I have been accused of all of those. As such I will refrain from editing this article for the most part. You or any editor may edit my draft and add or remove information to this article. I will try to stick to editing my draft and this talk page. Hopefully, with the help of others. The information there should be (once reliably proven or disproven) should be removed or added to this article. I would like to keep whole article there as it helps me see what is needed and how it should work together.  Endercase (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not aware (other than interest in the article), but I deeply respect that. Thanks, —  Paleo  Neonate  — 03:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Its called SHADOWBANNING
Everybody uses THIS term, so use it here too, ignorant wikipediot ^ I concur. To those who doubt, this can easily be verified by performing a simple web search.

Google numbers: shadowban Vs stealthban 639,000 vs 6,990

"shadow ban" Vs "stealth ban" 314,000 vs 5,400

Google numbers are estimates always over-estimates in my experience, but a reliable rough guide to a terms popularity e.g. shadowban is used ~100 more than stealthban both in the concatenated form and when a space is forced between the words so that ratio seems reasonably stable too. I have no idea how to actually change the title of the page so if someone with more wikipedia experience can do that, it would be great. SilentBear (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Old Stuff
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 Sue Gardner (talk ) 20:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because this isn't UrbanDictionary.com... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.90.59 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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. --Sirtaptap (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

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.

--- It seems like a very interesting topic to me as well. For paid services it may even constitute false advertising, e.g. intentionally deceiving customers about the service they are purchasing, but I'm no legal scholar and rules laws vary in different nations. For reliable sources I have no idea why ppl are saying that reliable sources are difficult to find. I've read countless articles over the years about the practice, here are three articles discussing the practice in a bing news search I just did: https://www.business2community.com/instagram/instagrams-new-shadowban-hurting-engagement-01851139 https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/reddit-account-suspensions/ http://www.ubergizmo.com/2017/05/pokemon-go-cheaters-shadowbanned/ All of these are significant news sites in overlapping but different domains. A wikipedia article is definitely justified. What it is. How it is/could be done. History (claims, proofs, admissions/denials/abandonment). Legality etc. These are all interesting wikipedia worth topics.SilentBear (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Proper Noun?
In the last paragraph, in reference to Craigslist, the word ghosting is capitalised; is it a proper noun? Otherwise, it should be lowercase.

History
I suggest that the following is added:

WeChat was found in 2016 to ban posts and messages that contain certain keywords without notice.

In a study that looked at tweets from 2014 to early 2015, over a quarter million tweets were found during the one year period in Turkey to have been censored via shadowbanning. Twitter was also found, in 2015, to shadowban tweets containing leaked documents in the US.

/Thank you for you time, Endercase (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keyword censorship is not the same as banning users as defined in this article. One of the two currently cited sources does make this connection, but it's tenuous -- as demonstrated by the fact that the original source is the Citizen Lab source that doesn't make the comparison. I think at best the comparison should be attributed inline to Doctorow, and the citation of Citizen Lab should be removed. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keyword censorship can also take the form of shadowbanning, and it does so very often. For example on 9gag or Youtube, if your comment contains certain words or combinations of words, it looks to you as if your comment was posted and everything is fine, but in reality you are the only person who can see your own post, which is the definition of shadowbanning. You can either shadowban a user completely, or comments containing certain words. It is the exact same kind of censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy7 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we can add instagram and pokemon go (Nintendo) as companies that allegedly use shadow banning based on my above article search: https://www.business2community.com/instagram/instagrams-new-shadowban-hurting-engagement-01851139 https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/reddit-account-suspensions/ http://www.ubergizmo.com/2017/05/pokemon-go-cheaters-shadowbanned but I haven't look into the details of any of those cases. In general, I think it would be good separate out companies that 1st party claim to employ shadow banning, 3rd party sourced claims, 3rd part controversy that falls short of direct claims, and any claims proven to be false. They all seem like distinct categories. SilentBear (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Not neutral as there is no critical section
A section about the abusing of this system, and the criticism is missing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:1898:6146:674B:F726 (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed 100%. Lately a LOT of my comments get shadowbanned for absolutely no legitimate reason on various sites, most notably & often on 9gag and Youtube. This is an absolutely appalling kind of censorship and in my opinion it shows quite a fascist mindset if you use such "instruments" to silence critics, political opponents or just people who talk a bit more rudely (there shouldn't be an obligation to be all "nice and kind" to be able to make use of your freedom of speech). I'm honestly surprised how uncritical this article is, it pretends as if this crap is only used against "spammers", just because that's the justification that shadowbanning sites give. Most often your comments get shadowbanned when they contain a certain word, or combination of words, and those words that get you shadowbanned are very often "politically incorrect" words. Any sane and rational person who values freedom of speech should be absolutely disgusted by this form of censorship, for me it has made the internet noticeably less free and restrictive when it comes to "unpopular" (i.e. unwanted) opinions, and therefore a lot less fun. I think it's currently one of the most important internet-related issues that we have, since it's completely anti free speech and most people don't even realize that they're being censored and their right to free speech is violated. Billy7 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

+1 for critical section SilentBear (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * So while I do agree it would improve the article we might experience a bit of resistance on this much like I did when I first cited right leaning news sources. I hope I can trust that y'all aren't WP:COI OR WP:SOCK accounts? We need "real accounts" on this topic. Sources will have to be high quality. I don't want another massive delete of this article. If any of you are banned users I suggest following the policies of wikipedia. This a "hot" topic. We need good sources that talk about the criticism anyone got any? (we can fight to list right leaning sources in RS noticeboard too iff they meet written policy). Bit of advice, both (all three?) of you should probably make userpages. Endercase (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I can only speak for myself, but yes, I am a "real" account, no sockpuppet. And I don't have any "conflict of interest" problems, I'm looking at this problem completely rationally (as I do with anything) and I'm not politically left or right leaning. Billy7 (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * +2 For needing a "Criticism" section. In order to discover whether you are shadow banned and for information on the other forms of "filtering" that Twitter performs, please see https://shadowban.eu. Other forms of banning at Twitter include: Search Suggestion Ban, Search Ban, Thread Ban, and Quality Filter Discrimination. Shadowban.eu states that "Testing over 2,000 contacts of two German left-wing extremist accounts did not yield a single account affected by QFD that would not be considered politically right. Testing 509 accounts from German members of Parliament yielded 14 afftected account. All of them belonging to the AfD, which is a German right-wing party."

Move
I agree that Shadow banning would be a better location for this article per WP:COMMONNAME. I will conduct the move per discussion above. Endercase (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Endercase (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Improving the description
The definition in the article seems to be focused of forum posts, but this isn't the only context in which shadowbanning is used. For instance this article https://thenextweb.com/gaming/2017/05/24/pokemon-go-update-trolls-cheaters-common-monsters/#.tnw_qThED78W uses it to describe a system where targeted users are banned from good random rewards, in that case good pokemon go monsters. Hiding a user's posts from the rest of the community is obviously an insufficient definition to include thenextweb's use of the term, and probably gaming in general.

Here are three elements I think the description needs to bring out. (1) Targeted content/user(s), the targeting method doesn't matter, but it must target so that some content/users and not others are affected (2) A change in the software behavior designed to be undetectable / difficult to detect (3) The change is intentionally designed to impede or negate the either the user's interaction and or the content's visibility (a bit rough but, that's why it is on the talk page, we need to be careful to describe element 3 in such a way that it doesn't include A/B tests and flighting that companies intentionally and invisibly creates differential treatment in order to test new algorithms. For example: a bug in the test algorithm may have the effect of negating users content in the test group, but that is NOT a shadowban bc shadowbanning is intentional) In the context of forums a shadowban could just be hiding the user's posts, but could be more extensive including ignoring their comment up/down votes, DMs etc.

I think youtube's restricted mode policy is an interesting case to examine. What makes this a nice example, I believe its existence is documented in 3rd and 1st party sources, and restricted mode targets content/users and hides it from other users (all nonlogged in use and logged in children) so it is quite similar in many respects, but if the content creator looks specifically in the right place, youtube tells them what is happening. So that isn't a shadowban right? Hypothetically it has a grey area too, what if the user has thousands of videos and youtube doesn't send a notification email that a video was placed in restricted mode. The user technically still has a way to tell, but it has been made quite practically difficult, making that hypothetical a semi-shadowban? It would be interesting to see if there are articles discussing/labeling this nuance. SilentBear (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Another interesting gray area example is spam filters. They discriminate based on content and sometimes sender, e.g. known spam hosts. They also never (in practice) tell the content creator the final visibility status spam/inbox. Messages in the spam folder are technically visible to the receiver(s) but practically no-one looks in the spam filters anymore so intentionally putting things in there may qualify for semi-shadowban? SilentBear (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The source that mentions Pokemon Go doesn't refer to the action as a shadowban or shadow banning. The source must be clear on this point to change the description. Seeing as this is relatively "new" word the commonly accepted definition is in flux. The current definition follows the sources as they currently/historically represent shadow banning. While I do agree that it seems to follow the elements you layout above we need reliable notable sources that we get our information from per wp:primary. Does refer to it as shadow banning but only in a blockquote from reddit which we can try referencing but it will likely be removed. They also call it "Common Pokémon Hell" which is similar to hell banning (a type of shadow ban) but not good enough IMO. --Endercase (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New sources popping up. Endercase (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Why does WIKIPEDIA forcibly suppress this article? Are you corrupt here?!
Where is the ProjectVeritas Finding? Why is everything so suspectly old, there are Daily News in May '18. And where are the damn foreign versions? Why do you protect TWITTER with their own Lies??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.227.119.190 (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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. Endercase (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC) www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/16/exclusive-twitter-shadowbanning-is-real-say-inside-sources/ breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used www.infowars.com/proof-twitter-is-censoring-donald-trump-to-block-fundraising-efforts/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/07/twitter-shadowbans-censorship-and-antitrust/8173/ http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/16/14635030/twitter-shadow-ban-moderation Endercase (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of Breitbart and Infowars was called into question. I call for discussion. See Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva for more. Endercase (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this discussion. Past RSN discussions demonstrate clear consensus that Breitbart is not normally a reliable source for statements of fact: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_211, Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 216. And the idea of calling the conspiracy-theory site Infowars a reliable source is absurd—it's even listed at List of fake news websites. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva. Please try to keep the discussion in one place. Endercase (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * From the Verge source, this doesn't sound like shadow banning, as the user is being told about their ban. ("Users have begun getting notices that their tweets are on a kind of time-out. These users are being told that “only your followers can see your activity on Twitter for the amount of time shown below,” followed by a number of hours.") --McGeddon (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is possible that we may need to change the definition somewhat, however many users are never notified and I can not verify notifications personally. I can verify traditional shadow banning. Twitter, in my opinion,  pours the most resources out of major social media into developing and modifying simi-autonomous user management tools. I would likely rank Facebook as second. But, my pov doesn't really matter . I'm still trying to find more approved sources.  Endercase (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , Not sure if people here knew but a tool presented for checking whether people have been shadowbanned on Twitter can be accessed at https://shadowban.eu.  The tool's creator credited with the 'research' for the project has presented a detailed thread on Twitter shaddowbanning here: https://twitter.com/Netzdenunziant/status/1010666642479767552.  There definitely seems to be a political element in shadow banning with this procedure being clearly involved in censorship.
 * GregKaye 09:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The tool seems legit. w umbolo   ^^^  14:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

And no mention of Facebook? Page administrators have this option openly.

Questions
Is anything currently being done to stop shadow banning? Also, is there a lack of information due to simply there not being enough instances of shadow banning? Brittany Mumford (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m assuming Wikipedia does this with ClueBot and other bot infrastructure? 2.122.255.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I’d imagine pertinent contributions are also replaced with profanity or nonsense as required for control? Maybe the sign off forms some rather sophisticated applications of these issues and by using it. The IP I have been bestowed with is under the control of whom the TLD belongs to and what I may contribute is unfortunately useless via the IP I’m about to sign off with. 2.122.255.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe Introduction might be helpful for your understanding. We can only include notable and reliable information in the article itself per Wikipedia's guidelines, which are extensive and created though consensus. Additionally, though technically no particular source is should be banned outright, per say, it can sometimes be very difficult to cite certain sources without consulting and gaining approval of wp:consensus at wp:RSN first. Endercase (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is lots of information. However, much of that is not wp:notable at this time. As for to stopping it, I personally believe understanding it would be a more prudent action. You can see this new article [this] which covers some of it. Endercase (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

PragerU
I removed PragerU from the "Notable examples" section. RS support for "shadow ban" and "censor" terminology has not been provided. –dlthewave ☎ 01:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Daily Caller calls it so. BBC list its story with a censorship tag. CNET describes it as blocking. Fox News describes it as censoring. Or are we saying that this event didn't happen?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Preston Business Review uses the term shadow banning.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We're saying, once again, that "shadow banning" needs far better sourcing.
 * The Preston Business Review ref is garbage, just like the others that were rejected in the PragerU. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is very easy to exclude content if there is an effort to claim that certain reliable sources are "garbage". When entire segments of media are not concerned about the elimination of certain content from being available to the public, and thus are not giving significant weight to the issue. At the same time ignoring other sources which are highlighting (giving weight) the issue, it makes it very easy to pretend that the issue doesn't exist. Which it does exist, because the event happened. It is verified it happened, and it can be verified that one side sees itself being censored and shadow banned.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are built on the identification and proper use of reliable sources. When obviously unreliable sources are presented, we should expect them to be rejected. If editors continue to propose unreliable sources, it can quickly turn into a behavioral problem.
 * Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theories. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is then a disagreement as to whether certain sources are reliable or not, with there being some who want to ensure that certain sources are not considered reliable. If certain sources are not considered reliable because they maybe biased towards a right-of-center political point of view (but otherwise meet WP:IRS) then it is easy not to include content within the article space which such sources would verify, and easy to include content which is from sources which may be biased towards a left-of-center political point of view (but otherwise meet WP:IRS) and that are considered reliable sources.
 * What behavioral problem is the above editor alleging?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any policy-based disagreement, nor attempts at determining whether or not there's larger consensus for the rejection of the references. I don't know how anyone can avoid being blocked for good reason if they cannot work with others, participate in consensus-building, acknowledge consensus, etc. Maybe by avoiding disputes and moving on when disputes happen?
 * Again, Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theories. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally think a better place for this argument about the Preston Business Review would be WP:RSN. Additionally, it would help your argument, which based apparently on an appeal to some unnamed authority, if you cited specific policies or the previous consensus that you mention. You may also want to review wp:nothere, it would be better to cite policy and use evidence to explain to the editor you are having a disagreement with why your actions and argument are correct, to build wp:consensus. WP:RELIABILITY is the relevant policy that appears to be at issue here and WP:RSN has jurisdiction over that when there is a policy based reason for calling a source garbage (such as the Daily Mail). Endercase (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This PragerU incident has resulted in the the creation of a number of sources that agree that in fact there was some banning and restriction that took place. However very few of those sources use the term "shadow banning" instead they simply use the terms restricted or banned, there may have been notification of the "user" in this case. I would agree that this incident is apparently notable and likely should be expanded in the PragerU article. If you want it included in this article I'd suggest finding additional sources that call the incident "shadow banning" and/or use the additional citation need tag and/or take this to WP:RSN or do something else based in policy. Please be aware of wp:editwar and WP:3RR, though personally I suggest wp:cycle. Endercase (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have questions on policy, would like clarification or expansion of my previous comments, etc., just ask.
 * I've tried to keep this discussion brief given Talk:PragerU. Please review that discussion and the subsequent section. I believe it covers all your concerns. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI the Preston Business Review consists solely of articles copy-and-pasted from other sources under the name "Caroline Biscotti". This particular article is copied from [ https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/facebook-censors-videos-on-masculine-men-moderate-muslims/ WorldNetDaily]. It certainly cannot be used at all. –dlthewave ☎ 18:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

VICE News article as a ref
An entire paragraph is dedicated to claims that rest solely on a debunked VICE News article. The NY Times explicitly says that VICE News misuses the term shadowbanning, and other RS also say that the VICE piece is wrong. Furthermore, the action construed as 'shadow-banning' by VICE also applied to left-leaning Twitter accounts. The content does not belong on this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Count me as shocked. And thus per BRD I have reverted the removal. If other sources disagree with the reporting of Vice, then add that content and let the readers decide, wording it neutrally thus not in Wiki-voice in the article space claiming one source is right and another source is wrong, or worse censor the fact that the event occurred all together.
 * It's easy to claim that those who are right of center are not being censored via shaddow banning if one does not believe those reporting that it is occurring.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Daily Beast, and Slate, have covered this. Now there maybe disagreement whether shadow banning is occurring or not, that is fine. Allow both claims to be here, and let the readers decide for themselves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Daily Beast does not confirm that anyone was shadow-banned. Slate says that this is not shadow-banning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Vice article has been taken out of context by Trump; content cited to it should be removed, not restored as was done here: . Another citation there is to Forbes.com/sites which is the non-editorial area of Forbes and is not considered RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't remove a source because Trump took it out of context in some tweet. w umbolo   ^^^  08:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The content is included in the section on "Notable examples". The sources (NYT, AP) do not describe this as a shadow ban, instead discussing the accusations of shadow banning from conservative media. Should it be removed, or perphaps a new section created, such as "Conspiracy theories"? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

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?

It should be this: Reportedly, if an ad is placed, confirmation is sent that it has been posted."

ClariLynx (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

 * and other sources make clear that there wasnt shadowbanning going on, and it wasnt unique to conservative accounts.

what was this supposed to mean? w umbolo  ^^^  15:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) There was no shadow-ban, (2) What Vice falsely describes as a "shadow ban" was a glitch that applied to both liberals and conservatives. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Vice didn't "falsely describe" anything. Read the lead:
 * Shadow banning (also called stealth banning, ghost banning or comment ghosting[1]) is the act of blocking or partially blocking a user...
 * By making a user's contributions invisible or less prominent to other members of the service, ...
 * So your claim that it's not shadow banning is not universally agreed upon. There are sources other than Vice News reporting on the "shadow banning": Engadget, Buzzfeed News , PolitiFact , Fox News , National Review News , The Epoch Times . w umbolo   ^^^  15:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * NY Times explicitly says it was not shadowbanning. The Engadget source explicitly says it was not shadowbanning. The Buzzfeed source explicitly says it was not shadowbanning. PolitiFact at no point says that Twitter shadowbanned anyone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Politifact does not deny it. I misread the Engadget source, but the Buzzfeed source begins with a false definition of shadow banning. w umbolo   ^^^  16:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we can say the definition is false, per say, so much as different. This is, historically, a relatively new and controversial term; as such I personally expect the definition to be in flux for some time. Though it is important and may need to be mentioned in the article that different sources are using different definitions. Though, I have not personally haven't seen an article discussing the different definitions as of yet and it may not be notable. Endercase (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The first few shadowbanning cases on Reddit gained mentions in a couple of news articles on tech websites. It was generally insignificant coverage of shadow banning in general, i.e. the oldest sources discussing shadow banning don't go beyond a dictionary definition. The recent discussion about shadow banning involves the usage of partisan definitions. Even well-respected news outlets like The New York Times and Politifact have to rely on some definition. Since the usage of the word by Republicans, we can only expect that all definitions of shadow banning are partisan. If we want this to resemble an encyclopedia article, we should use some older definition, and delete the article otherwise (i.e. if we can't find a non-partisan definition of the article's subject). w umbolo   ^^^  17:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I might have to expand on my rationale for deleting this article. If the article's WP:SCOPE can only be chosen among partisan scopes (e.g. POV funnels), the article probably shouldn't exist (or at least shouldn't claim to have a correct and truthful scope). w umbolo   ^^^  17:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be just a case of moving it. The concept goes back quite a while, it's the naming that's problematic. When is the first reliable reference to "shadow banning" vs the other names given in the lede? Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ultimately it is a form of censorship. If WP:MERGE is suggested then the larger topic of corporate censorship in the 21st century is definitely notable, even including the move by the PRC to ensure that RoC destinations not be listed under the name Taiwan on corporate websites (Fox News, The New York Times, Business Insider).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Scope?
From my reading of sources, "shadow banning" seems to have evolved into mostly a conspiracy theory. See for example:
 * NEW YORK (AP) -- The sinister-sounding term "shadow banning" has been in play recently, mostly thanks to conservatives -- including President Donald Trump -- accusing Twitter and other technology companies of political bias. "Twitter 'SHADOW BANNING' prominent Republicans. Not good. We will look into this discriminatory and illegal practice at once! Many complaints," the president tweeted on July 26. (His tweet was not accurate.) (...)
 * Conservative complaints of shadow banning have been in play for a few years. In a 2016 Breitbart article, right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos wrote that Twitter was blacklisting "politically inconvenient users," citing an unnamed individual inside the company.

Source: EXPLAINED: What is shadow banning? By BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP Technology Writer. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Supposed examples of modern social media "shadow banning" are poorly sourced. Reliable sources generally frame it as an accusation of shadow banning, and the few sources that analyze these claims invariably find them to be unfounded. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how shadow banning is a conspiracy theory. I think that this article needs to be brought up to date. There is clear evidence that the algorithms used by major social media companies to sort information for users demonstrates several biases - one of which is a bias towards liberal mainstream media content and/or thought and away from conservative content. One need look no further than this Huff Post article on the testimony of Zuckerberg regarding Internet personalities Diamond and Silk to see that Facebook actively suppressed their conservative "celebrity" account until there was sufficient public pressure applied to reverse that decision. That's hardly a conspiracy theory. Wcmcdade (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what the source says. You may want to quote it. w umbolo   ^^^  18:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding your comment, "That's not what the source says." Are you arguing that shadow banning of conservatives/conservative sources and material on social media and on search engines is nothing more than a conspiracy theory? My direct links to articles that discuss the practice and related matters/causes was meant to help anyone here who is unfamiliar with this issue to understand it more broadly. I'm not certain that there is any article out there that specifically states that shadow banning is NOT a conspiracy theory, anymore than I can find any article out there that specifically states that shunning recently divorced people in their own social circle is NOT a conspiracy theory, but unfortunately we all know that that happens.  Wcmcdade (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe this is the series of quotes you may be looking for. From September 2017 to April 2018, Facebook insists that they had just made “an enforcement error” on an account with over 1 million followers?
 * “The duo’s most popular video on YouTube to date is an August 2015 defense of Trump after then-Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked during a candidate debate about the misogynistic language he used on Twitter. It has 1.7 million views. On Facebook, a broad defense of Trump posted in November 2015 has earned 1.9 million views. Despite their popularity and the fact they’ve now been posting for years, Facebook earlier this month deemed their page ― which counts more than 1.4 million likes ― as “unsafe to the community.” “The sisters in a post said they had been corresponding with Facebook since September because they believed the site had throttled their reach and was not sending out notifications to fans when they had new content. On April 6, they found out why, and were told the decision was “final.” In a statement issued Monday, Facebook said the message Diamond and Silk received about their content was “inaccurate,” and the company “looks forward” to speaking with the sisters about the problem.”

“Zuckerberg responded by saying his team had “made an enforcement error, and we’ve already gotten in touch with them to reverse it.””Wcmcdade (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Reduction of material about Twitter in 2018
I moved the info about Twitter in 2018 from the paragraph in the Twitter 2014/2015 events, trimmed it , and then decided it would be better to just remove given the comments in the section above and the redundancy: --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

In July of 2018, in response to allegations of shadow banning, Twitter's legal and product leads stated that Twitter does not shadowban accounts, but that the platform's ranking model may have meant that certain Republican Representatives may been ranked lower by the auto-suggestion algorithm. United States President Donald Trump has alleged that Twitter employs the practice, and has threatened an investigation.

I did not go through the history to see how the redundancy was created, or if other solutions had been lost along the way. If nothing else, we might want to use some of the references. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wording could be changed to "After the Vice finding some conservatives including United States President Donald Trump accused Twitter of enacting a shadowban on Republican accounts. In July of 2018, in response to allegations of shadow banning, Twitter's legal and product leads stated that Twitter does not shadowban accounts, but that the platform's ranking model may have meant that certain Republican Representatives may been ranked lower by the auto-suggestion algorithm." ? Endercase (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to include information both critical of and also supporting Twitter's denial of banning that is borne out of the Project Veritas video as part of their #AmericanPravda campaign, titled, "UNDERCOVER VIDEO: Twitter Engineers to "ban a way of talking" Through "shadow banning," Algorithms to Censor Opposing Political Opinions. This section should also include some of the other ways in which Twitter bans or filters content described as "Search Suggestion Ban", "Search Ban", "Thread Ban" and "Quality Filter Discrimination". Wcmcdade (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory due mention?
This article from Vox may be enough to introduce the conspiracy theory aspect into the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2018
 * I don't think Vox will be accepted as a source, since it cites Vice, which has been accused by several editors of publishing false information about shadow banning. w umbolo   ^^^  18:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * While I'd prefer a better source, the general consensus appears to be that Vox.com is reliable though biased, and an indicator of notability.
 * Citing an unreliable source is not an indication of unreliability. Is there something in how they refer to the Vice citation that concerns you?
 * Do you have other, specific concerns about this article being unreliable? --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Vice has been accused by the likes of the New York Times of fabricating articles about shadow banning, so I wouldn't trust anyone on shadow banning if they cite Vice. w umbolo   ^^^  09:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * so I wouldn't trust anyone on shadow banning if they cite Vice As I said, that alone doesn't impact the reliability of a source. It would depend upon how they use the citation, and if we rely upon anything related to the Vice citation...
 * I don't believe the Vice citation has anything to do with why I'm suggestion we use it, so I'm going to move on given my questions are unanswered. (Note I've slightly reworded my questions for clarity). --Ronz (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:FRIND requires source independence. Citing a fringe source as fact does not constitute WP:SECONDARY coverage and is therefore subject to be interpreted as not independent. w umbolo   ^^^  14:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not following. Could you elaborate? The source is independent and secondary. It is not fringe in any way that I understand. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Vice is fringe, and Salon is citing it as fact. w umbolo   ^^^  16:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, you're confusing "fringe" with "unreliable", confusing Vox with Salon, not looking at the specific context of the use of the Vice citation in the Vox article (which seems perfectly fine, btw), and are ignoring the fact that the information we'd use from Vox is unrelated to what Vox uses from Vice. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The paragraph might be too long (undue). Per WP:ONEWAY and WP:FRINGE. w umbolo   ^^^  20:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The "conspiracy theory" sentence appropriately introduces the 2018 events from a mainstream viewpoint. Taking the shadow ban claims at face value is a fringe POV and is correctly treated as such. The length of the paragraph is not a problem. –dlthewave ☎ 02:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * A compromise and two grammar fixes were attempted and rejected. [here] Endercase (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it needs to be attributed to Vox, and doing so undermines the conspiracy theory claim.
 * The wording change creates the perception that it was but is no longer a conspiracy theory.
 * Overall, the edit seems to go against POV, FRINGE, and NOT. --Ronz (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit goes in support of both POV and FRINGE, and I can't see how NOT applies. w umbolo   ^^^  20:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say WP:NOTPROPAGANDA falls under NPOV, and your edit goes against that. w umbolo   ^^^  14:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you explain? --Ronz (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From WP:NPOV - Avoid stating opinions as facts. w umbolo   ^^^  14:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So somehow there's an opinion here somewhere? --Ronz (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course. Vox calling it a conspiracy theory per its definition of shadow banning. w umbolo   ^^^  14:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's no explanation, just an assertion. --Ronz (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are trying to implement Vox's assertion that this is a conspiracy theory. w umbolo   ^^^  14:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

We are on content, its the fact that the article describes it as a conspiracy theory that is the main problem now. Why and how was it considered a conspiracy in any way? Vice and Vox are NOT reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.104.253  (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Why do so many editors believe that shadow-banning of conservative ideas and or public figures is a "conspiracy theory" when there is direct evidence of major Silicon Valley/Bay Area based platforms banning conservative users/celebrities and manipulating search results? Can any of you point to a reliable 3rd party source that states the Shadow banning and manipulation of search results of conservatives and conservative voices is definitely NOT occurring? Is there some independent study that has been done to demonstrate this, because I find just the opposite when looking for material. The only people claiming that they are NOT GUILTTY of shadow banning are the companies being accused of Shadow banning. This would be like us writing an article about the conspiracy theory that North Korea has nuclear weapons and then siting North Korea as our source to prove that they do not have nuclear weapons.Wcmcdade (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC.
 * You're getting off topic of the purpose of this talk page. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Ronz, Thank you for the feedback of WP:FOC. '
 * It might be more correct to not only to add a "Criticism" section as mentioned in a separate talk thread above, but to add a section that brings in the concept of "Political Bias Accusations" by conservatives as well as the defense of that accusation by left-leaning media sources and pundits that the accusations simply amount to a "Conspiracy Theory". I would propose that we could perhaps work on a section titled something like, "Shadow Banning Republicans and Conservatives vs Conspiracy Theory". This approach may allow for entry of the accusation of the President of the United States that "Twitter 'SHADOW BANNING' prominent Republicans. Not good. We will look into this discriminatory and illegal practice at once! Many complaints," and then also allow for the rebuttals of Twitter's CEO and others where Jack Dorsey said in his testimony to Congress, 'that it would make no sense to mute users based on politics. "From a simple business perspective and to serve the public conversation, Twitter is incentivized to keep all voices on the platform,"' Please note that I would STRONGLY OBJECT to this new section of the article simply being called, "Conspiracy Theory" as that would imply that all mainstream opinions firmly believe and/or would characterize any of this "shadow ban" criticism as bunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This was covered by many reliable websites that verified the claims, although some like Engadget disputed it. That no longer makes it fringe and means it should probably be included in the article. I have written a compromise between the various POVs in reliable sources. w umbolo   ^^^  10:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The "compromise" involved a change in pov by rejecting reliable sources while promoting poor sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)