Talk:Shadow banning
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shadow banning article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Conspiracy theory
[edit]After getting access to the article, the Moore ref (Moore, Elaine (13 March 2022). "The truth about 'shadowbanning' is more complicated than influencers think". Financial Times. Retrieved 12 June 2022.) appears to be an opinion piece. I've removed it. It might be helpful to look at the history of it's use in this article.
The "Controversies" section as a whole needs revisiting. There's more than just the 2018 jump in interest to cover, and even that part doesn't appear to be covered neutrally. - Hipal (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- "Conspiracy Theories" may not be accurate to describe algorithmic shadowbanning accusations.
- This is due to algorithmic shadowbans possibly occurring with no explicit intention. This would be more accurately described as possible negligence than a pconspiracy.
- In this source Twitter is quoted "We do not shadow ban."[1] This does not exclude algorithmic shadow bans. Earlier in the article, it claims, "Twitter also had a bug that caused some accounts to not be auto-suggested in search results even when people were searching for their names." The article also alleges that Twitter admitted to the bug when they fixed it. This is by definition, algorithmic shadowbanning.
- Maybe split the section into conspiracy and negligence accusations. ~2026-31039-22 (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01634437221077174 doesnt appear reliable, but it looks like it might be a source for potential references. --Hipal (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Origin of term?
[edit]I don't remember the term "shadow ban" actually being used on Something Awful prior to its popularization in relation to Twitter. "Hellban" is the term I remember being used instead. I'm having trouble tracking down anything that I'm satisfied would meet WP:RS, though. Best I've been able to find is the Jeff Atwood blog post already cited in the article, and it isn't really explicit enough about it for me to be sure it'd work as a source for this specific claim. -Pikavangelist (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Deleted a problematic paragraph in the lede intro
[edit]It included pov language, such as "the hope may be" - but far worse it was implying that there is nothing particulary sinister about "shadowbanning", and it is a generally good thing leading to positive outcomes (stopping trolls, etc.). This claim is in direct contrast with the content of much of the article which details serious issues like the censorship of tweets that are not supportive of the current government of Turkey, removal of comments not supportive of the regime in China, or censorship of posts dealing with Israeli attrocities committed in Gaza and Palestine, etc. Content of the lede should only summrise the article content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-36756-77 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)