6 ms·

It’s not the fact that these systems exist, it’s that Twitter denied that they did for years, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

threeseed 4y ago
> it’s that Twitter denied that they did for years When ? I haven't seen any evidence of this.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  First hit on google: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...
  - afavour 4y ago
    Unless I’ve missed something there’s still no evidence of Twitter shadow banning users. Weiss incorrectly calls a bunch of things “shadow banning” but not anything the matches the actual accepted definition.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Limiting reach is not the same as shadow banning which has a specific meaning.
    - MallocVoidstar 4y ago
      "Limiting reach" is what Twitter users think shadowbanning is. I've seen major accounts declare that, because less people are retweeting them than they think is normal, they must be shadowbanned. Obviously, if they were actually shadowbanned, nobody would be retweeting them.
      - godelski 4y ago
        That's not a good definition. If I have 0 followers I have very limited reach. You need a consistent definition. No one thinks downweighting content is shadowbanning either (unless that weight is 0, but then we're back to the normal definition).
  - godelski 4y ago
    That's not shadow-banning They fucked up and admitted it (what algo is infallible?) The fuckup wasn't targeted, it was algorithmic, and it affected both sides of the isle. Your link literally demonstrates the opposite of your claim.
grmnygrmny2 4y ago
> Abusive and spammy behavior. When abuse or manipulation of our service is reported or detected, we may take action to limit the reach of a person's Tweets. Learn more about actions we take, including temporary and permanent account suspensions, and limiting account functionality. https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/1601015660993449986 https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/160101566099344998...
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  By all means, everyone, feel free to be pendatic about the language here, and deferring to their weasels words, in the direct light of the documentation that has been released, because you agree with the editorial direction. It has been SPECIFICALLY revealed that they frobbed the knobs when they didn’t like what was being posted, while admitting that their own policies weren’t being triggered, and they had no justification.
  - MallocVoidstar 4y ago
    > It has been SPECIFICALLY revealed that they frobbed the knobs when they didn’t like what was being posted, while admitting that their own policies weren’t being triggered Where was this revealed? I saw Bari Weiss claim it happened but the screenshot she posted as evidence specifically says the account violated their policies.
    - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
      It's literally in the same thread! https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601020845224128512 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601020845224128512 I guess you're reading this and saying that "indirect" violations are the same thing as direct, i.e., defined, violations? Is that what's happening? People downvoting me are being absolute pedants about the definition of "shadow banning," and then just give this part a pass and say it's fine? I guess this is the world we live in now, in every respect. There's so much STUFF going on, and so much written about the stuff, that people can choose to focus on whichever half they want, and find plenty to support their position. But I still live in a world where the general IDEA is the main thing, and Twitter has been shown to do things outside of their stated policy. And, sure, as someone else pointed out, they're allowed to do whatever they want. But they didn't have to hedge and lie about it.
someNameIG 4y ago
This seems to say what they did wasn't how Twitter defines shadow banning. https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1601019554980761600?s=20 https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1601019554980761600?s...
- Zuiii 4y ago
  Reminds me how certain governments redefined mass surveillance then denied it.
  - someNameIG 4y ago
    Is it really redefined though? iirc it's how Reddit also implements shadow bans, no one else can see your messages other than you, to you it looks normal.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Their user agreement says they may limit visibility of tweets. Is their moderation, transparent, no. do they promise that it will be? Also no. I'm fairly sure my own account has some visibility limits on it and has done for ages, but I don't think about it much.
agentdrtran 4y ago
they literally had a press conference about most of these features in 2018
patmcc 4y ago
I think it's largely a disagreement on definitions - tweet 7 in the thread even hints at this: >>>7. What many people call “shadow banning,” Twitter executives and employees call “Visibility Filtering” or “VF.” Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning. My definition of "shadow banning" (or hellbanning) is that the user's tweets/posts are not visible to anyone except them; Twitter was not doing that. Twitter was clear in saying "oh, we limit visibility, don't allow certain things in trending topics, etc." and apparently some people think of that as shadow banning.
paul7986 4y ago
Indeed and here is their tweet saying they do not https://twitter.com/twitter/status/1022658436704731136?s=46&t=6jmnn02gWcDHh9-bmix7TQ https://twitter.com/twitter/status/1022658436704731136?s=46&... Isn't there a fiduciary duty to be honest with their investors?
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Musk went through with the deal because he couldn't prove Twitter lied to investors, so I see no reason to trust him now.
- tedunangst 4y ago
  It's generally assumed investors can read. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...
- seanhunter 4y ago
  Fiduciary duty is a responsibility to act in someone's best interests (the investors in this case)[1]. The requirement to not make misleading statements affecting investors is a different requirement [2]. To the substance of your statement, they don't shadow ban, so that's not a misleading statement. The fact that a lot of people take an extremely broad view of what shadow banning is doesn't change that. Twitter actually define shadow banning in the link in the tweet you posted, and explain what they do and why that's not shadow banning.[3] [1] Very good explanation here https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042915/what-are-some-examples-fiduciary-duty.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042915/what-are-som... [2] Not to "misrepresent" material facts, which is a form of securities fraud https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/misrepresentation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/misrepresentation.asp [3] The original link is down but I found it in the internet archive. https://archive.vn/m4bT4 https://archive.vn/m4bT4
godelski 4y ago
> Twitter denied that they did for years You yourself literally posted a link from 4 years ago that demonstrates the opposite of this claim. How is this comment so high? I feel like I'm at a UFO convention and people just want to believe.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  > people just want to believe Accurate. There’s a strong contingent of folks here that believe “the leftists” are oppressing them and “Twitter silences our voices” is a big part of the conspiracy theory. Musk is throwing fuel on the fire, because he also just wants to believe.
  - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
    We've had two releases of documentation that prove what you are mockingly-dismissing here, and you pretend that it's still all in people's heads. What am I missing?
    - root_axis 4y ago
      They don't prove that. This reasoning is like saying the law oppresses men because they are disproportionately convicted of violent crimes.
      - darkpatterns 4y ago
        Don't read anything into this, but can you see the next step here if you replace "men" with "black men"? Is this actually the point you want to make?
        root_axis 4y ago
        I don't see how that changes anything except to make the analogy politically fraught and easier to derail. The logic remains the same. Certainly, conservatives have no problem with the logic if you modify the analogy as you have suggested.
toofy 4y ago
> Twitter denied that they did for years twitter has denied what for years? if you're implying they denied they moderate, delete, or derank content, this is absolutely not true.
kyleblarson 4y ago
And the systems were overwhelmingly used to throttle one type of political viewpoint.

threeseed 4y ago

> it’s that Twitter denied that they did for years When ? I haven't seen any evidence of this.

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
First hit on google: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...
- afavour 4y ago
  Unless I’ve missed something there’s still no evidence of Twitter shadow banning users. Weiss incorrectly calls a bunch of things “shadow banning” but not anything the matches the actual accepted definition.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Limiting reach is not the same as shadow banning which has a specific meaning.
  - MallocVoidstar 4y ago
    "Limiting reach" is what Twitter users think shadowbanning is. I've seen major accounts declare that, because less people are retweeting them than they think is normal, they must be shadowbanned. Obviously, if they were actually shadowbanned, nobody would be retweeting them.
    - godelski 4y ago
      That's not a good definition. If I have 0 followers I have very limited reach. You need a consistent definition. No one thinks downweighting content is shadowbanning either (unless that weight is 0, but then we're back to the normal definition).
- godelski 4y ago
  That's not shadow-banning They fucked up and admitted it (what algo is infallible?) The fuckup wasn't targeted, it was algorithmic, and it affected both sides of the isle. Your link literally demonstrates the opposite of your claim.

grmnygrmny2 4y ago

> Abusive and spammy behavior. When abuse or manipulation of our service is reported or detected, we may take action to limit the reach of a person's Tweets. Learn more about actions we take, including temporary and permanent account suspensions, and limiting account functionality. https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/1601015660993449986 https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/160101566099344998...

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
By all means, everyone, feel free to be pendatic about the language here, and deferring to their weasels words, in the direct light of the documentation that has been released, because you agree with the editorial direction. It has been SPECIFICALLY revealed that they frobbed the knobs when they didn’t like what was being posted, while admitting that their own policies weren’t being triggered, and they had no justification.
- MallocVoidstar 4y ago
  > It has been SPECIFICALLY revealed that they frobbed the knobs when they didn’t like what was being posted, while admitting that their own policies weren’t being triggered Where was this revealed? I saw Bari Weiss claim it happened but the screenshot she posted as evidence specifically says the account violated their policies.
  - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
    It's literally in the same thread! https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601020845224128512 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601020845224128512 I guess you're reading this and saying that "indirect" violations are the same thing as direct, i.e., defined, violations? Is that what's happening? People downvoting me are being absolute pedants about the definition of "shadow banning," and then just give this part a pass and say it's fine? I guess this is the world we live in now, in every respect. There's so much STUFF going on, and so much written about the stuff, that people can choose to focus on whichever half they want, and find plenty to support their position. But I still live in a world where the general IDEA is the main thing, and Twitter has been shown to do things outside of their stated policy. And, sure, as someone else pointed out, they're allowed to do whatever they want. But they didn't have to hedge and lie about it.

someNameIG 4y ago

This seems to say what they did wasn't how Twitter defines shadow banning. https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1601019554980761600?s=20 https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1601019554980761600?s...

Zuiii 4y ago
Reminds me how certain governments redefined mass surveillance then denied it.
- someNameIG 4y ago
  Is it really redefined though? iirc it's how Reddit also implements shadow bans, no one else can see your messages other than you, to you it looks normal.

anigbrowl 4y ago

Their user agreement says they may limit visibility of tweets. Is their moderation, transparent, no. do they promise that it will be? Also no. I'm fairly sure my own account has some visibility limits on it and has done for ages, but I don't think about it much.

agentdrtran 4y ago

they literally had a press conference about most of these features in 2018

patmcc 4y ago

I think it's largely a disagreement on definitions - tweet 7 in the thread even hints at this: >>>7. What many people call “shadow banning,” Twitter executives and employees call “Visibility Filtering” or “VF.” Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning. My definition of "shadow banning" (or hellbanning) is that the user's tweets/posts are not visible to anyone except them; Twitter was not doing that. Twitter was clear in saying "oh, we limit visibility, don't allow certain things in trending topics, etc." and apparently some people think of that as shadow banning.

paul7986 4y ago

Indeed and here is their tweet saying they do not https://twitter.com/twitter/status/1022658436704731136?s=46&t=6jmnn02gWcDHh9-bmix7TQ https://twitter.com/twitter/status/1022658436704731136?s=46&... Isn't there a fiduciary duty to be honest with their investors?

encryptluks2 4y ago
Musk went through with the deal because he couldn't prove Twitter lied to investors, so I see no reason to trust him now.
tedunangst 4y ago
It's generally assumed investors can read. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...
seanhunter 4y ago
Fiduciary duty is a responsibility to act in someone's best interests (the investors in this case)[1]. The requirement to not make misleading statements affecting investors is a different requirement [2]. To the substance of your statement, they don't shadow ban, so that's not a misleading statement. The fact that a lot of people take an extremely broad view of what shadow banning is doesn't change that. Twitter actually define shadow banning in the link in the tweet you posted, and explain what they do and why that's not shadow banning.[3] [1] Very good explanation here https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042915/what-are-some-examples-fiduciary-duty.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042915/what-are-som... [2] Not to "misrepresent" material facts, which is a form of securities fraud https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/misrepresentation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/misrepresentation.asp [3] The original link is down but I found it in the internet archive. https://archive.vn/m4bT4 https://archive.vn/m4bT4

godelski 4y ago

> Twitter denied that they did for years You yourself literally posted a link from 4 years ago that demonstrates the opposite of this claim. How is this comment so high? I feel like I'm at a UFO convention and people just want to believe.

drewbug01 4y ago
> people just want to believe Accurate. There’s a strong contingent of folks here that believe “the leftists” are oppressing them and “Twitter silences our voices” is a big part of the conspiracy theory. Musk is throwing fuel on the fire, because he also just wants to believe.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  We've had two releases of documentation that prove what you are mockingly-dismissing here, and you pretend that it's still all in people's heads. What am I missing?
  - root_axis 4y ago
    They don't prove that. This reasoning is like saying the law oppresses men because they are disproportionately convicted of violent crimes.
    - darkpatterns 4y ago
      Don't read anything into this, but can you see the next step here if you replace "men" with "black men"? Is this actually the point you want to make?
      - root_axis 4y ago
        I don't see how that changes anything except to make the analogy politically fraught and easier to derail. The logic remains the same. Certainly, conservatives have no problem with the logic if you modify the analogy as you have suggested.

toofy 4y ago

> Twitter denied that they did for years twitter has denied what for years? if you're implying they denied they moderate, delete, or derank content, this is absolutely not true.

kyleblarson 4y ago

And the systems were overwhelmingly used to throttle one type of political viewpoint.