Elon Musk Still Loves ‘Shadow Banning’ Those He Doesn’t Like

from the everything-bad-is-good-when-i-do-it dept

Late last year, we wrote about the extremely misleading discussion around “shadow banning” on Twitter. The history of the term is important, as it originated as a tool to defeat trolls, and it had a very specific definition: making users who were deemed problematic to a site think their posts were still getting through, when no one else could actually see them. The concept began on the Something Awful forums as a tool against trolls, and migrated elsewhere. It was seen as a clever approach to trolls who especially live for reactions: they can keep posting, but they never get any reaction.

However, in 2018 the term was corrupted, and morphed by some bad reporting, into being used to convey any kind of de-ranking or algorithmic demotion. Still, these days, it has become the common usage of the term among many, even as it makes the word kinda meaningless and disconnected from the more clever anti-trolling tool it really was under its original meaning.

This is because the nature of any algorithm, be it search or recommendation feed, is that it has to uprank some items (the ones the algorithm thinks is most relevant) and downrank other items (the ones the algorithm thinks are least relevant). Yet, that shouldn’t be seen as “shadow banning,” as it’s not about banning anything.

Either way, one of Elon Musk’s big pronouncements upon taking over Twitter was that he seemed all in on this idea, which he acted as if he invented, calling it “deboosting.”

New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.

Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter.

You won't find the tweet unless you specifically seek it out, which is no different from rest of internet

Hilariously, though, just weeks later, when one of the Twitter Files discussed how Twitter already had such tools in place for what it referred to internally as “visibility filtering,” (something that had been widely discussed years earlier when Twitter announced the policy), he acted as if something criminal had happened.

Indeed, soon after he promised that Twitter would shortly be rolling out a feature to tell users if they had been “shadowbanned.”

Twitter is working on a software update that will show your true account status, so you know clearly if you've been shadowbanned, the reason why and how to appeal.

Like oh so many of his promises, this one is still yet to materialize.

What has been shown, repeatedly, however, is that Musk is now using the ability to “max deboost” those he dislikes, to his own advantage. We already noted how it was ordered that the account that tracks his jet was given the most stringent visibility filtering (before he banned it entirely — despite promising not to).

Then, last month, Tesla employees charged that Elon had done the same to their new union’s Twitter account in some filing with the NLRB.

And, now, the latest is that Platformer reports that employees inside Twitter have leaked that Musk ordered them to “shadow ban” the Twitter accounts of other social media networks.

Twitter has been down-ranking the corporate accounts of its competitors, including TikTok, Snap, Meta, and Instagram, Platformer has learned. The change, which was rolled out in December, means that tweets from these accounts are not recommended to users who do not follow them, and won’t show up in their For You tab, we’re told. 

The down-ranking has been applied to more of TikTok’s accounts than any other company’s, according to internal documents obtained by Platformer. At least 19 of TikTok’s corporate accounts, including @TikTok_US, @TIkTokSports, and @TikTokSupport, are included in the down-ranking list, compared to three of Snap’s corporate accounts and two of Instagrams. Publicly available data shows that engagement on tweets from @TikTok_US saw a sharp downturn in January. 

The timing of this matches with that brief moment when Twitter officially changed its public policies to say that no user could link to any alternative social media platform, which pissed off basically everyone. About the only person who stood up to defend it was Musk’s mother, who looked kinda silly when Elon rolled back the policy a day later, admitting it was stupid.

However, based on the timing, it looks like Musk only rolled back the public part of the policy, saying users couldn’t link to other social media apps. What appears to have been left in place was the plan to secretly “max deboost” the corporate accounts of those other companies, which is the kind of thing you do when you’re really secure in your value proposition over them.

Elon is, of course, free to do this. It’s his playground and he can do whatever he wants with it. But it’s pretty funny that people were all worked up about publicly revealed plans to try to use these algorithmic filtering tools to boost “healthy conversations,” and yet those very same people don’t seem to much care when Elon is using it to settle personal scores.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Elon Musk Still Loves ‘Shadow Banning’ Those He Doesn’t Like”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
60 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Scott P Graves says:

Re: Duh.

That’s the political pendulum at work. In the 60s the left peaked at dominating culture and then the pendulum swung right. In the 80s the right was burning Dungeons and Dragons books because they found them Satanic. In the 00s it swung back to the left and we got political correctness, cancel culture and alphabet people shoving their demands everywhere. That pendulum has now peaked and we are swinging the other way. As far as the left pushed it on this swing expect the right to push it as far if not farther. The alphabet people will likely get all the oppression they claimed has been happening. Expect drag shows to be totally banned and expect social media to be dominated by the right. Won’t this be fun. NOT. But then was swing left was pretty bad too. Sometime in 2050 the pendulum will hit its peak and swing left again. I hope to be dead by then.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Book burnings vs 'Maybe tone down the bigotry', same thing really

In the 00s it swung back to the left and we got political correctness, cancel culture and alphabet people shoving their demands everywhere.

Yes, curse those damned leftists for checks notes wanting people who aren’t straight white men to be treated as people and shown basic courtesy, how dare they try to impose such unreasonable demands upon society.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

With all due respect, I thought the “Left”, ie, Commies, were so sure that a political revolution was gonna take place they started violently robbing banks and did the whole terrorism thing, aided by the SOviet Union and their South American toadies…

I don’t particularly remember them going after D&D or rock and whatnot…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

User Relevancy

it had a very specific definition: making users who were deemed problematic to a site think their posts were still getting through, when no one else could actually see them

It turns out the definition of shadow banning didn’t change; only the realization of who was doing the “making”. The algorithm itself wasn’t reordering the relevancy. The so-called “moderators” were targeting specific accounts and particular subjects. The algorithm would likely have determined particular posts were relevant to normies, so the ranking system was upended to to produce the results desired by the platform operators, and not the users.

If certain people who didn’t want to see particular content weren’t shown the content, it wouldn’t have been a problem. But that wasn’t the solution. The operators were disappointed that ANYONE could find the content, and even more upset that some might enjoy it. Shadow banning was never about relevant results to the user. It was about HIDING content despite being relevant.

If Elon is personally having content hidden from view, then it is still shadowbanning. Nonetheless, returning to an algorithm relevancy ranking system sounds like an admirable goal. Don’t let the “moderators” tilt the scales.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?

That questions is massively irrelevant. Twitter DID shadowban. Then lied about it before congress.

Also, gonna point out that you DO believe that, at least in regards to cakes. Again.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

"Shadowban" means a thing.

You. Are. Lying. The Vice article you quote is merely engaging in some very long-form dissembling and FUD.

“Shadowban” means a thing. All definitions change over time, more so on the internet, but it’s meant that thing for a long time, well before 2018.

“Shadownban” does not mean what Twitter defined internally as “shadowban”.

“Shadowban” very definitely means what Twitter was calling “visibility filtering.”

Jay Bhattacharya was verifiably shadowbanned. He didn’t even know about it until the twitterfiles came out. This was probably at government request, either personally or as part of a request to mute “True, but misleading” (whatever the fuck you think that means) medical info, but that part is not verified, just strongly suggested. We know at least several hundred people were shadowbanned.

Thus, when Twitter execs said in congressional hearings that they didn’t “Shadowban”, they were lying, and thus guilty of perjury. They are unlikely to ever be prosecuted for that, but the fact remains.

Now, is Musk shadowbanning SM competitors? Unclear, your friend “Casey” likes to depend on hearsay from single, anonymous sources with suspect motivations, so he’s not a very reliable journalist. It certainly seems possible.

But I have to point out that shadowbanning mentions of competitors is way, way less nefarious than shadowbanning political speech or the qualified opinion of medical experts.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: This is usually for lawyers but in this case...

When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.

When the law is on your side, pound on the law.

When neither the facts or law are on your side pound on the keyboard and hope quantity of claims will be mistaken for quality of claims.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I don’t think what your saying actually makes any sense.

the thing you deceptively refer to as “shadow banning” is an aspect of relevance, or “on-topic(s)-ness”. That is having the attribute of being related, on-top, or of interest to the given criteria.

If your suggesting certain things should never be shadow banned… your saying the are relevant/on-topic/of-interest to any and all people/searches/etc?

PS. If that does not sound crazy and/or stupid, please seek immediate medical and or psychological aid.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

It’s not just a slight algorithmic weighting if that’s what you’re going for.

It means that you’re just never going to see those persons tweets, ever. Even retweets are broken up.

It means when you search for someone, it just doesn’t fucking show.

“Twitter said that the use of the phrase “shadow banning” was inaccurate, as the tweets were still visible by navigating to the home page of the relevant account”

Yeah, so 1) Twitter doesn’t control the definition of “Shadowban” 2) that bullshit excuse doesn’t mean much if people can never find you in the first place, does it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

“Shadowban” very definitely means what Twitter was calling “visibility filtering.”

Does anyone who knows how Twitter operates actually agree with that?

Jay Bhattacharya was verifiably shadowbanned.[…]This was probably at government request

…he said without a shred of evidence.

your friend “Casey” likes to depend on hearsay from single, anonymous sources with suspect motivations

…he said, again without a shred of evidence.

Also, firsthand accounts aren’t “hearsay”, you moron.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Does anyone who knows how Twitter operates actually agree with that?

Twitter doesn’t control the definition, but yes, basically everyone but Masnick agrees that it fits the definition of shadowbanning. Even Masnick does but he’s pretending it’s some “new” definition (of the last 5 years, and also no it’s not)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Twitter doesn’t control the definition

Neither do you.

yes, basically everyone but Masnick agrees that it fits the definition of shadowbanning.

Source?

Even Masnick does but he’s pretending it’s some “new” definition

If there’s one thing you don’t have the first clue about, it’s what Masnick believes, given how often you misrepresent him and his views.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Dude, I know exactly what shadowbanning is, because I run software that has a tickbox that says ‘shadowban user’.

It does exactly what Something Awful’s did, though as a matter of policy I don’t use it on the theory that if someone warrants being shadowbanned you may as well just properly ban ’em.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Toast says:

Re:

„“Shadownban” does not mean what Twitter defined internally as “shadowban”.“

https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning.html

This is Twitters official blogpost on shadowbanning. It is one of the first results on google if you search for „does Twitter shadowban“. The forth sentence, at the start of the second paragraph, is Twitters definition of shadowbanning. The entire blogpost is about what they do and do not mean when they say they „do not shadowban“.
How exactly is that an internal definition when they literally start their answer to „do you shadowban“ by defining the word? How can they possibly be more clear and transparent?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It’s Matty the Denier. You can bitch-slap him with actual facts, citations and links, and he’ll angrily deny or ignore it while calling you a liar. He isn’t here to debate, he has explicitly said that he is only here to harass Mike and TD.

Just flag and ignore, he’ll go away when people stop interacting with him.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'X is terrible (when my side isn't doing it)!'

Another reminder that when the ‘free speech’ lot complain about ‘censorship’ and how ‘all ideas should be allowed’ what they mean almost without exception is only speech they agree with and ideas they are putting forth.

Give them the power to engage in the same behavior they were condemning but moments before and they will jump at the opportunity to use it.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: halves, at least

How dare you suggest there is any wit in Florida!

The legislature is in session. We have well over a hundred half-wits there. 160 legislators, at 0.5 wit each, suggests a total of 80 wits.

This is good, in a way, since no one would want to have folks like [legislator_name] in their communities. Send them to Tally for a couple of months, then you might as well go ahead and send them on up to Chattahoochee.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

THis gray area says:

"Heaven banning"

You should do an article about Twitter’s plans to do “heaven banning” which George Holtz tweeted about before his prompt departure from his volunteer internship at Twitter earlier this year. He casually mentioned in a tweet that Twitter will send a bunch of its own bots to reply to a tweet that has been flagged for this or that reason. The bots are designed to express agreement with the tweet so the originator of the tweet thinks they are getting lots of positive feedback and attention when in fact their posts are not showing up anywhere on true twitter. their user experience is fabricated by twitter to appear as if the user is actually on the platform when infact they are isolated in a simulated illusion cooked up by twitter teams algorithm. Its deceptive and cruel to create a false twitter and manipulate people with fake impressions likes and replies…but what else does “freedom of speech” not “freedom of reach” translate to in terms of application especially if they need peoples attention on platform to sell ad space for profit and they need people to pay for a subscription to turn a profit. Its as if Musk is trying to make the act of nullifying any form of ethics a way to generate cashflow. Wonder if heaven banning happens to someone who paid for a subscription if it would constitute fraud with the intent to profit from the deception? Then again who wpuld actually hold them accountable for wrong doing? Who can tell if the subscription actually does anything? His lawyers have the illusion of plausible deniability to fall back on. “Who know what these crazy algorithms do?”
Its all an arbritrary scheme that Twitter says “trust us blindly”. Open sourcing the algorithm of recomendations for you to follow on twitter means the proprietary part must be in who that algorithm keeps from existing on the same platform as the rest of everyone. Which is a scary though when you consider that Elon wants to tap directly into peoples brains with hardware and software to connect to the digital realm. Jf he is willing to create an artificial reality on Twitter there is nothing to suggests he has ethical standards that would stop him from using that construct in his neuralink tedhnology. Sounds like the “vanilla sky” movie meets “black mirror” episode. Further, Everything Musk accused Twitter 1.0 of doing that was damaging free speech he is directing Twitter 2.0 to do under the guise of a flase patriotic ideal of “public town square” that is manifesting as a new social class structure in an online architecture with Musks personal whim doing the gatekeeping. The age of social media is dying. Its degrading into something sinister and debase. Elon’s Twitter is just the blue canary in the coal mine revealing tell tale signs of exploitation of weakness of ignorance and the vulnerability of uncertainty.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Scott P Graves says:

Crybabies

This is Twitter we are talking about. Something the majority of humanity lives perfectly happily without. Why the crybaby over what a private company does? Twitter has never been fair before, why expect it to be fair now? Try just leaving Twitter and go outside, take a walk, throw a Frisbee or some other activity. Try talking to people face to face.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re:

Why the crybaby over what a private company does? Twitter has never been fair before, why expect it to be fair now?

It’s pointing out the pure hypocrisy and dishonesty of certain people who talked big about free speech before Musk bought Twitter and those people are now very very quiet about what’s going on.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...