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

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H

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

Membership of the EU: pros and cons

5th December 2013, update May 2016 Nigel Lawson, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer,  recently criticised the UK membership of the EU , the media has covered his mainstream view as if he is a bad boy starting a fight in the school playground, but is he right about the EU? What has changed that makes EU membership a burning issue?  What has changed is that the 19 countries of the Eurozone are now seeking political union to escape their financial problems.   Seven further EU countries have signed up to join the Euro but the British and Danish have opted out.  The EU is rapidly becoming two blocks - the 26 and Britain and Denmark.   Lawson's fear was that if Britain stays in the EU it will be isolated and dominated by a Eurozone bloc that uses "unified representation of the euro area" , so acting like a single country which controls 90% of the vote in the EU with no vetoes available to the UK in most decisions.  The full plans for Eurozone political union ( EMU Stage