Skip to main content

Shadow Banning on Twitter

I have been fully Shadow Banned on Twitter!  I found out by contacting a friend and asking them to view a Twitter thread that I believed I had been replying to.  My own Twitter feed showed all of my replies but the friend could not find any of them on the thread.

You know you are being shadow banned when no-one replies, retweets or likes you on Twitter any more.  That is not because they don't like you, its because they never see your replies.  You can also be partially shadow banned with your replies tucked away beneath "more replies" boxes or only available if you click on the tweet to which the reply applied (de-threading).  De-threading prevents people who are looking at the main thread from seeing your tweet.

It is quite possible that Twitter is tightening up its shadow banning operation as the UK gets nearer to a vote on Brexit.  All broadcast media have mounted a frenetic anti-no-deal propaganda drive and no doubt other forms of media are following on.

I have just found out that other people who support Brexit have recently found themselves lacking comments and "likes" in Twitter, with a sudden downturn over the past few days.  Twitter is definitely campaigning for Remain by turning up the strength of their shadow banning algorithms.

Twitter itself says it does not shadow ban although it is clear from their protestation of innocence that their ranking systems are a form of shadow banning.  Twitter's point seems to really be that their shadow banning is always justifiable on grounds other than political bias.

Reading through Twitter's justification for shadow banning it seems the rules are strongly opposed to people tweeting views that disagree with the views expressed on a thread.  This behaviour will not result in likes and may lead to muting by participants in the thread, both of which will downgrade the Twitter user and so will effectively shadow ban them across all of Twitter. 

Twitter is not really a suitable platform for political debate because its rules, if followed by participants, result in polarisation into groups of individuals who all like each other's tweets and never mute each other.  Twitter permits political content but does not really want to host political debate.

It is possible that some groups of political activists have worked out how to aggressively game Twitter's rules by creating large threads with lots of their own participants and then progressively muting opponents who join.  Looking back over my tweeting history it may have been involvement in such a thread that got me fully shadow banned.  If you want to campaign on Twitter beware of threads with a suspiciously large number of participants, they may be traps of this sort.

Update: I am now back to a half ban. How strange...

What should Twitter do?

Being banned is one thing but being "shadow" banned is altogether a different level of slyness. Twitter should warn users that they are being downgraded.  This might be done with an indicator panel in their profile that has their downgrade score.  This would convert "shadow" banning into simple banning.

There might also be a political section in profiles that has options such as "this ID is being used for political debate" and "allow strong banning of political content".  Strong banning would involve the same level of banning as, say, an aggressive campaign for a commercial product might experience.

The two options would operate as follows.  If an ID was declared to be political it would only experience a weak level of banning so that political debate could occur.  If a general user really did not want to be bothered by politics they would tick the "allow strong banning of political content" so that the number of political tweets that they received would be minimised as it would for unwanted commercial content.  The two options would be mutually exclusive so that political IDs could not opt out of political debate.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b...

The Roots of New Labour

This article was written in 2009 but is still useful to understand the motivation behind New Labour - from the global financial crisis through the over-regulated, surveillance society to the break up of the UK into nationalities. The past lives of Labour Ministers have long been sanitised and many biographies that include their shady communist and Marxist pasts are inaccessible or removed from the net. The truth about these guys is similar to discovering that leading Tories were members of the Nazi Party. If you are a British voter and do not think that this is important then I despair for British politics.  Had these people taken jobs in industry their past might be forgotten and forgiven but they continued in left wing politics and even today boast of being "Stalinist" or International Socialist (or in Blair's case, Trotskyist ). Peter Mandelson (first Secretary of State and Labour Supremo): "Mr Mandelson was born into a Labour family - his grandfather wa...

Do Muslim women want to wear the Burka (Burqua)?

Do all islamic women want to wear burka?  Can a woman's freedom to wear what she wants oppress other women?  Are western feminists aiding a cult that is dedicated to the destruction of feminism?  I hope to answer these questions in this article.  I would much appreciate any comments you might have if you disagree with the article, especially if you have a feminist viewpoint. Here is a description of the problems of wearing burka by a woman of Asian origin: "Of course, many veiled Muslim women argue that, far from being forced to wear burkas by ruthless husbands, they do so out of choice. And I have to take them at their word. But it is also very apparent that many women are forced behind the veil. A number of them have turned up at my door seeking refuge from their fathers, mothers, brothers and in-laws - men brain-washed by religious leaders who use physical and mental abuse to compel the girls to cover up. It started with the headscarf, then went to th...