Talk:Shadow banning/Archive 2

Fringe nonsense about conservative targeting
This text was just edit-warred into the article:


 * Shadow banning became popularized in 2018 when Twitter was widely described to have conspired to limit influence of certain accounts by minimizing their prominence on search results.    However, Engadget disputed the conspiracy theory, and Buzzfeed confirmed a bug but denied that it was a shadow banning conspiracy. Prominent Republicans alleged that Twitter specifically conspired against them. In late July 2018, Vice News found that several supporters of the US Republican Party no longer appeared in the auto-populated drop-down search menu on Twitter, thus limiting their visibility when being searched for - allegedly due to the same algorithm that was being used to do the same to the accounts of prominent racists. After that finding, some conservatives accused Twitter of enacting a shadowban on Republican accounts, which Twitter flatly denied. Later, Twitter restored the affected accounts.

There are multiple problems: The Epoch Times is obviously not a RS. NR and Fox News have dubious RS status and are both simply regurgitating the Vice News story - furthermore they are not just remarking on the algorithms but promoting the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that conservatives were specifically targeted. PolitiFact did not describe the practice as shadow-banning (Wumbolo has already been informed of this) and the NY Times did not describe it as shadow-banning. The NY Times explicitly says that Vice misconstrued the term shadow-banning and other RS also say that the VICE piece is wrong. NY Mag described the Vice story as "essentially a more partisan-focused repackaging of an article published by Gizmodo." I pointed this out to Wumbolo on 8 September 2018, yet this "widely described" nonsense, which lends credence to the conservative conspiracy theory, is now been edit-warred into the article. Wumbolo furthermore wrote, "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," when he sought to exclude RS reporting which disputed the shadow-banning charge, yet the sources used for the "widely described" language (National Review, Fox News) are exclusively relying on and citing Vice's reporting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a clear case of promoting the pov of poor sources over that of better sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment that "I wouldn't trust anyone on shadow banning if they cite Vice" was extremely clueless because I did not understand WP:NPOV well enough back then. Sorry for the confusion. w umbolo   ^^^  20:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Analysis of all sources is below.


 * In conclusion, among solid reliable sources, 3 say that it's a conspiracy theory, 12 say nothing, and one is ambiguous. Among the same reliable sources, there is a 12–0 consensus that Twitter did in fact limit the prominence of popular political personalities. There is also a 7–6 non-consensus that this constitutes shadow banning. Finally, there is a 7–3 consensus that Republicans were specifically targeted OR that they just "happened" to be the most prominent victims. I will leave this here for a few days, and will implement all the listed sources into the article if we end up with some kind of consensus on the talk page. This table actually took less than an hour to fill completely, although it took an embarassing number of minutes before that to create the table and fill the first two columns :P. Note: all of these sources have been on this talk page or on the article. I did not include obviously unreliable sources. w umbolo   ^^^  20:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe your opinions on the reliability of the various sources are consistent with the general consensus. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I went with WP:RSN and WP:RSP. If you disagree with a specific source, say so instead of making such a vague comment. w umbolo   ^^^  21:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * (1) No one disputes that Twitter implemented a change in algorithms.
 * (2) Vox does not describe it as shadow-banning. It clearly explains the “basic definition” of shadow-banning and then refers to conservatives’ “perceived shadow-banning”, which is unlike “a traditional shadow ban”. TechCrunch does not identify the algorithm change as shadow-banning. The Hill describes the accusations by conservatives, it does not describe Twitter’s algorithm change as shadow-banning. PolitiFact does not specifically describe Twitter’s algorithm change as shadow-banning; PF contrasts the “strongest form” of shadow-banning with vaguely worded language about Trump responding to something “more subtle”.
 * (3) It is inaccurate to say it targeted conservatives when the algorithm change related to interactions with fringe accounts (which conservatives happened to more frequently interact with) - which is what NY Mag says. The NRO and Fox News links just regurgitate the Vice story, including a list of a couple of Republicans who the algorithm hit. NY Times does not say that Republicans were specifically targeted, just that some Republicans were hit by the algorithm.
 * (4) Nieman Lab is obviously RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) You disputed it by calling it a "conspiracy theory".
 * (2) Vox explicitly says the following: "[...] Twitter’s version [of shadow banning] de-listed some accounts and their content from displaying automatically". That's clear cut. While TechCrunch does not identify it as shadow banning, it does not dispute it either – that's what I meant by "not given". Same goes for The Hill. We obviously disagree on our interpretations on the PolitiFact source; hopefully other editors will chime in on it.
 * (3) Perhaps something like this may work in the article: "Republicans accused Twitter of shadow banning them. It was verified that they were displayed less prominently in search results [or whatever]. According to the New York magazine, this was due to Republican Twitter accounts being more closely connected to ToS-violating accounts [or whatever] than those of Democrats. Some have however disputed that Republicans were [insert word(s) here] more than Democrats at all." This would make it both clear that the Republican victims were more often publicized, and that there is a dispute over whether they were "targeted" more than Democrats.
 * (4) I wasn't sure if it was a student publication since it's published by a university, and haven't found anything at WP:RSN so I didn't analyze it. The article's author, Laura Hazard Owen, is not a journalist but is the deputy editor of the publication. To be honest, the article tends to quote a lot of involved people but doesn't say much original. The headline explicitly says that Twitter isn't shadow banning Republicans, but that's too vague and we generally don't cite headlines. The article also puts this incident into a greater political context, which is not useful here but might be if this is mentioned on other articles about politics (and it is AFAIK). w umbolo   ^^^  21:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) I've repeatedly said that the shadow-banning was the "conspiracy theory".
 * (2) I've already explained why your interpretation of the Vox source is wrong.
 * (3) This version accurately accounts for the events. A sentence that Republican accounts interacted more with fringe accounts, and were thus hit by the algorithm changes, prior to the final sentence would be fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) Why emphasize it so much then? The version you linked says that numerous outlets "disputed the Vice story". This is vague. The only thing they disputed is whether this is shadow banning, the other parts of the Vice story were confirmed by many RS.
 * (2) Did you notice that the Vox article talks about "perceived shadow-banning" before the section titled "What did Twitter actually do?" ? The article introduces the claim about perceived shadow banning and proceeds to check if it's true. And in the section where it checks if it's true, it says that Twitter shadow banned the accounts (not in the traditional way, of course, but in the modern way). w umbolo   ^^^  22:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the slightest way forward in this approach, given that we disagree on the reliability of sources.
 * I suggest making an edit request or proposal. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

WeChat
I deleted the text "was found in 2016 to" from the original edit because it was leaping to conclusion based on limited evidence - the cited sources do not say that the technology was developed for this purpose only. My change was reverted. Why? Is there a credible source which shows that WeChat was "founded," indeed "created" to do only shadow banning? Just because a digital technology is used in a certain way we cannot leap to the conclusion that it must be its sole purpose. By the same token we should also add a line for Facebook: Facebook was found to sell user data. My point is that we should write what is true - given the evidence - not speculate or jump to conclusion.mitsein 20:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a discussion. I hope you don't mind that I moved it to a new section where it will be easier for others to find and comment.
 * I don't understand your concern, nor why you removed the content. I'm guessing you're mistranslating. The words "found" and "founded" have very different meanings. --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Protected? WTF? Wikipedia Censor Alarm!
How corrupt is Wikipedia, where are the FR, ES, IT, PO, DE Versions of this criminal Twitter Measure, why are you censoring Talk and Article Area? Generate international Versions also for China, Japan, India! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.227.114.124 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 13:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Editors on the English Wikipedia are not responsible for the French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian Wikipedias (and the Italian wikipedia does have an article at it:Shadow ban). If you want articles on those wikipedias, review their inclusion policies and create them there. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

Recommended content
In March 2019, it was reported that US Congressman Devin Nunes was suing Twitter, claiming among other things that it was "shadow banning" his account.

108.184.219.198 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that there also need to be links on the page to topics such as BuzzFeed News, and italics for newspapers.
 * Maybe when the situation is further along and there's clear context showing it deserves mention and why. Currently, it looks like a political stunt, playing on the conspiracy theory. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * wp:NOTNEWS WP:RSBREAKING suggest that the cases of Mr. Nunes and Mrs. Gabbard both suing large tech companies over claims of undue censorship should be allowed to develop without the comment or "coverage" of wikipedia. While it is possible that a lawsuits or legal section should be at some point added to the article; I likewise currently can not agree to it being added. As to whether or not x, y or z is a conspiracy theory or a Publicity stunt that really isn't our jobs as editors to judge or speculate IMO, but that of reliable secondary and primary sources. Endercase (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Facebook patent
Facebook has recently patented "shadowbanning" this was granted after a few rejections. Further information (Gizmodo). And patent in question

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.205.46 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of YouTube as a website that practices shadowbanning
It is known to a not-insignificant amount of regular users of the highly-popular website YouTube that the site practices shadow banning in the comments sections of videos and community posts, allowing you to post comments but hiding them from the public view if they contain certain combinations of offensive or politically "hot" keywords. Despite the fact that this is easily testable and verifiable by the average user, as well as the fact that a simple Google search will turn up many individual reports of this happening, I am struggling to find any reputable sources I can use to merit the inclusion of this information in the article. --ZarHakkar (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

new section needed on Arbitrary Censorship of Public Users
imho, a new section needs to be added to this article as it pertains to using Shadow Banning as a form of censorship.

Above "imho" sentence is unsigned and not written by me, but is gross understatement:  As in Oct 2021 youtube shadowbanning or ghostbanning appears to have ramped up and is now raging out of control, not to remove "spam" but to censor various political views of both right and left, and anything some algorithm mistakes for controversial. Nothing to do with spambots, it seems some algorithm bot is ghosting both videos and comments of real living users for no reason.

I say nothing controversial yet I cannot even search my own videos or playlists anymore, as even when I copy paste my own playlist titles like "urban planning and gentrification" into youtube search, it returns "no results found" or floods results with corporate videos that have more views, but are off topic.

If I type exact title of my own video or playlist on "urban planning and gentrification", that title should top youtube search results. Instead top search results are stuff like "history of city parks" by History Channel, nothing to do with my playlist or topic. It is as if the public is not allowed to upload videos or share playlists on youtube anymore.

This article premise is flawed, as the whole concept of ghosting is flawed, when it says ghosting is a way of discouraging spambots. Nonsense. Spambots don't know and don't care. Ghosting only hurts real living users, public citizens who should enjoy free speech.

If some global corporation is censoring their own users, that censor is obligated to inform users why they were censored or banned from platform. It is irresponsible and immoral to ghost videos or comments or posts of real users without reason or explanation. Such ghosting is straight outta Franz Kafka's THE TRIAL. 209.34.140.68 (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

209.34.140.68 (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Facebook
Is there really nothing about Facebook to include here? Anyone have some information on this front? Mrgauntlett (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

youTube section
Curious. Nobody has anything to say about a phenomenon common enough that a section has been created for it? Certainly no dearth of material on Reddit, and Google itself's discussion pages; I guess those arenas don't fall under the umbrella of legitimate secondary sources. A derivative curiosity is Google/youTube's silence on the matter. JohndanR (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Tiktok
"TikTok is an app that has come under fire for what's called a 'filter bubble', which shield users from differing views. Tiktok has also been criticized for 'shadowbanning' users who create or promote content regarding the experiences of marginalized groups.   The app released a statement in October 2020 detailing how their algorithm promotes content to users, and addressed the concept of a filter bubble directly, stating that there 'is a risk of presenting an increasingly homogenous stream of videos', but assuring users that they take this issue seriously."

I'm concerned with the quality of references here, the wording using Wikipedia's voice, and the lack of "shadow banning" in some of the better references. A complete rewrite from the better sources seems needed, while being very careful to not include any original research. --Hipal (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The origin of the term and relavence of shadows is not explained.
The origin of the term and relavence of shadows is not explained. 120.21.34.197 (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Global structure of the article
As may be expected from such a ... contentious topic, the structure of the article is a bit of a mess; for instance, I suspect that the total nesting of the body sections as Notable examples→History→Twitter may not be entirely intentional. As a more specific example, I find it notable that, even though the body text is entirely within the "History" header, the origins of the term (on SomethingAwful) are not noted anywhere.

I propose that the article be restructured as follows:


 * 1) Definitions – The meaning of the phrase is pretty contentious so I imagine a definitions section is warranted, though I'm not sure I have enough sources to do that justice at the moment
 * 2) History
 * 3) Early history – discuss predecessors of the "shadow ban" in 80s and 90s
 * 4) Origin of the phrase "shadow ban" – use of the shadow ban on SomethingAwful
 * 5) Social media – use/alleged use of shadow bans in the social media era
 * 6) possible subsection on Reddit, which may be particularly notable (from Vox, "The current understanding of the concept of shadow-banning has been made widely known through Reddit, where it has long been an acceptable method for minimizing bots, spam, trolls, and unfriendly or disruptive users.")
 * 7) Controversies
 * 8) Twitter auto-suggest issue – the current "Twitter" subsubsection, which should probably be rearranged a bit, particularly to emphasize certain aspects of the story that are not disputed by reliable sources (the policy change in question did not implement a shadowban in the more traditional sense and it did not affect Republicans/conservatives solely or uniformly)
 * 9) Conspiracy theories – there should be something about how it has become common in conspiratorial circles to claim "shadowbanning" when content gets low engagement for more obvious reasons, though here as well I am not sure that a solid section can be built out of the sources we already have

NotPomade (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Nice article
A form of conspiracy theory has become popular in which a social media content creator suggests that their content has been by intentionally suppressed by a platform which claims not to engage in shadow banning" A little bit illogic because you say banning exist and banning is exactly this:suppresing someone.Try to talk against abortion with arguments ,try to talk against toxic feminism,try to talk about the side effects of some drugs.Anything that is against mainstream narrative will be supressed and there is no doubt about it.My comments are not visible on yt,Facebook is showing my comments or posts just to a few people ,yt deleted my chanel just because of a playlist i made(not my videos) and since than my other chanel is totally dead,most of the comments i post are not visible,and it's more than an year.Now tik tok is doing the same.From 25000 views to 200 since two months ago after i commented on a hateful video about men and abortion.Now no matter what i post i get 200-400 views..This form of banning or censorship is changing the society in a bad way.This never happened before.We have values and truth just because these voices survived for millenia.With this censorship what will survive?Not what people feel it's true and beautiful but what a handful of people think it's important.It's more important than Freedom of speech. 86.126.133.67 (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

“Blacklisting”
Twitter’s current/past systems call their shadowbanning “blacklist”, per screenshots and reports from journalist Bari Weiss. Andrew30126 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. They don't call it "blacklisting" though.
 * I'm not clear if identifying that Twitter had various "blacklists" is needed, but maybe we should try that instead. --Hipal (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2022
Change:

"The functions were alleged to be examples of "shadow banning" by Musk and other critics, although these actions do not result in the content of the affected accounts being completely inaccessible to other users."

To:

"The functions were given as examples of "shadow banning" by Musk and other critics, although these actions do not result in the content of the affected accounts being completely inaccessible to other users."

As they are examples of Twitter reducing viability which meets the definition for Shadow-banning in article and as defined by the article I referenced in the talk page:

"Today, people use shadowban to refer to the wide range of ways platforms may remove or reduce the visibility of their content without telling them." Shovern (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The word "alleged" should stay there for WP:NPOV reasons; I moved it to before "shadow banning" to make it clear that it's used as a verb, not an adjective. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Vox article accuracy, neutrality, and relevance
The vox article has serious issues in terms of accuracy given the recent reports from Journalist Bari Weiss. The article postulates that shadow banning on Twitter is merely a conspiracy theory that has been blown out of proportion. The site has a left bias and overall the reference lacks neutrality. It is also not relevant in the current state of information regarding this practice within Twitter.

(ref 21) Romano, Aja (6 September 2018). "How hysteria over Twitter shadow-banning led to a bizarre congressional hearing". Vox. Andrew30126 (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I already wrote, It's unlikely that previous references will be due complete removal. It's rare that new references demonstrate that major changes in POV are DUE.
 * Weiss' reports aren't independent, but just an analysis of what information is being fed to Weiss by Twitter, correct? --Hipal (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter-bari-weiss-cousins-confidants-2022-12
 * "Now, Weiss has been given access to Twitter's employee systems, added to its Slack, and given a company laptop, two people familiar with her presence said."
 * Less "Being Fed" and more given pretty thorough access. Shovern (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Says Twitter... --Hipal (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hipal how would you dispute it? Do you consider an old article by Vox about Twitter a more relevant source of information than an internal documents and communications brought forward by an independent left leaning journalist who is confirmed to have access to such documents by Twitter itself? Are claims made by Twitter about Twitter to be disregarded? what would be the rationale for this? 2A02:A420:18:ED0A:58B3:9C4B:B1A0:8E60 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory"
Claiming shadow banning on Twitter or Youtube are "conspiracy theories" is just ridiculous.

Shadow banning can easily be proven by going, with another device where you aren't logged in (or private browsing), to the video/tweet where your shadow banned account left a comment and seeing that your comment isn't showing. The biased person cited in that article is being blatantly dishonest by claiming it's just "assumptions due to decreased activity".

Calling things that are so easily verifiably true "conspiracy theories" is dangerous and will lead to more and more people believing in actual conspiracy theories due to no longer taking the term seriously. 92.150.143.133 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR --Hipal (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We've got a journalist going over these claims on Twitter now: https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600
 * So I imagine this article will be due for a tuneup shortly, per 92.150.143.133 's suggestion. Shovern (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll have to see what any new, independent, reliable sources have to say. It's unlikely that previous references will be due complete removal. It's rare that new references demonstrate that major changes in POV are DUE. --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think ViperSnake151's changes address the new information well. --Hipal (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-twitter-files-documents-bari-weiss/672421/ may be helpful. --Hipal (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Twitter's VF (visibility filtering) practices fall neatly within the definition of Shadow banning: "Shadow banning, also called stealth banning, hellbanning, ghost banning and comment ghosting, is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user's content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user" - It's clearly not a conspiracy theory.  Jimmy zed0 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref? --Hipal (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * He's referencing the definition provided in article, which seems top be pulling from the first citation:
 * "Definitions: what is ‘shadow banning’?
 * The term  ‘shadow  banning’  is  colloquial  in  origin  and  its  usage  has  changed  over  time. Originally, the term referred to a deceptive type of account suspension on web forums: a shadow banned user would be give the impression that they were still able to post, whereas in fact their content was no longer visible to any other users. Some sources continue to use the term in this way (including, as we will see, the DSA). But in more recent usage, shadow banning usually refers to alternative remedies, especially visibility remedies such as delisting and downranking.These remedies do not cut off access to content entirely, but instead make it less visible through content discovery features such as search and recommendation."
 * Given that definition I'd agree that "Conspiracy Theory" no longer fits as a descriptor, as it is quite well confirmed now. Shovern (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the double post)
 * If you are looking for a non-primary source:
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/04/social-media-shadowbans-tiktok-twitter/629702/
 * "Today, people use shadowban to refer to the wide range of ways platforms may remove or reduce the visibility of their content without telling them." Shovern (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theory" still applies. However, some accounts that were not overtly political or conservative apparently had the same algorithm applied to them.[25] Numerous news outlets, including The New York Times, The Guardian, Buzzfeed News, Engadget and New York magazine, disputed the Vice News story. I know there's huge pressure to change this, but we follow POV and independent references, not public relations and political campaigns. --Hipal (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hipal "conspiracy theory still applies". then proceeds to give no reference for this claim despite spending the entire thread asking others for references whenever they post something. sounds like a massive case of "i just don't like it" 87.15.10.72 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I cited one just above. If you're here to work in good faith with other editors, please take time to review the article and the discussions here.
 * You'll note the ref says When Vice published a story last week about Republican political figures apparently being “shadow banned” on Twitter, conservatives seized on the story because it fed their persecution complex. “See, it’s not just the media and Hollywood that hate us, social media platforms do too!” sums up their arguments. The problem with this argument is 1) shadow banning doesn’t exist in the way they think it does and 2) many others who are not conservative have been “shadow banned.” --Hipal (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hipal So your first assumption for why republicans leaped on the story is that it fed their persecution complex despite there being many other more plausible explanations of why they might leap on it, it confirming that shadowbanning, as many people already suspected is actually happening being the obvious one.
 * I think you're showing your bias on this topic quite clearly here, the newest information on the story quite clearly debunks claims that this was just a conspiracy theory or a product of conservative imagination.
 * The claim about shadowbanning being a conspiracy theory can be kept in a past tense. "It was previously suspected/claimed that "shadowbanning" is a conspiracy theory..." or similiar. 2A02:A420:18:ED0A:58B3:9C4B:B1A0:8E60 (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sanctions apply here (WP:ARBAP2), requiring all editors to be very familiar with relevant policies. Please follow WP:BATTLE, WP:FOC, and WP:AGF; and review WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:IS, and WP:POV. --Hipal (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

MORE than two related but distinct topics?
The title of the article is "Shadow banning" the main purpose is seemingly a page with historical and contemporary understandings and definiitions. Possibly useful is mentioning tangential topics, but is indepth examination of such beyond that scope? WP:OOS Is it more informative and constructive to limit the scope of text (and talk!) of the rapidly-increasing number and depth of related; (conspiracy) theories, allegations, and controversies? WP:WHENSPLIT Should said "(conspiracy) theories" and controversies move to appropriate sections of platform specific and/or other more appropriate articles? WP:CONSPLIT This Request for discussion, is a good faith attempt to avoid WP:RfC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.232.179 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain in detail, perhaps pointing out references. I'm having great difficulty understanding what you are proposing at this point. --Hipal (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2023
Structure the following sentence to say what it means (to read correctly): "The functions were given as examples of "shadow banning" by Musk and other critics."

Thus: "The functions were given by Musk and other critics as examples of "shadow banning"."

The first version is very bad (ahem: poor) grammar. Thanks so much! 2600:1000:B110:6E97:7DAE:3999:FC8:AD3B (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅. Colonestarrice (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Also on Reddit, register the Username
https://www.reddit.com/r/ShadowBan/comments/10ylm8c/comment/j7yjna9/?context=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:CF10:4A00:6349:5EBD:AA36:50FF (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories"
Anyone notice the Elaine Moore "explanation" as to why users believe they're shadow banned "even when they are not" isn't actually an explanation? It's just her asserting that users are wrong. Presumably a writer for the Financial Times is not actually privy to whether a website in fact has or has not shadow banned individual users. Unless she claims to have sources in the companies refuting the users' claims of being shadow banned. Which is doubtful, but the source is paywalled. If someone wants to pay and check to see Elaine Moore's insider knowledge of X/Facebook/YouTube/etc., that'd be helpful. 67.46.64.45 (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The Controversies section should be rewritten
First as mention above it contradicts the first section. Second, it is not objective and kind of condescending. In the age of artificial intelligence how do you define shadow banning?

All social media use algorithms to decide what users can read and in what order. These algorithms use a bunch of personal data and collected data. They are kept secret. There is no transparency to what feeds our daily virtual life on most social media. One who goes against the ideologies put forward by the social media will get a negative score and will get effectively shadow banned. Many users are being shadow banned at diverse degrees, it's a fact. Rejecting this fact is dangerous.


 * What change, exactly, are you suggesting? "[The algorithms] are kept secret" but you know for a fact that it's going "against the ideologies put forward by the social media" that gets accounts shadow-banned. Do you just want to substitute what you perceive as a lack of objectivity with a different but equally biased point of view? WP Ludicer (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)