Shadow banning

{{Short description|Blocking a user from an online community without their awareness}} '''Shadow banning,''' also known as '''stealth banning, hell banning, ghost banning,''' and '''comment ghosting,''' is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user's content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user, regardless of whether the action is taken by an individual or an algorithm. For example, shadow-banned comments posted to a blog or media website would be visible to the sender, but not to other users accessing the site.

The phrase "shadow banning" has a colloquial history and has undergone some evolution of usage. It originally applied to a deceptive sort of account suspension on web forums, where a person would appear to be able to post while actually having all of their content hidden from other users. In 2022, the term has come to apply to alternative measures, particularly visibility measures like delisting and downranking.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=An End to Shadow Banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation |url=https://osf.io/7jg45/ |access-date=2022-12-11 |website=osf.io |page=3 |doi=10.31219/osf.io/7jg45 |last1=Leerssen |first1=Paddy }}</ref>

By partly concealing, or making a user's contributions invisible or less prominent to other members of the service, the hope may be that in the absence of reactions to their comments, the problematic or otherwise out-of-favour user will become bored or frustrated and leave the site, and that spammers and trolls will be discouraged<ref name="Thompson2009">{{cite news|url=http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-04/st_thompson |title=Clive Thompson on the Taming of Comment Trolls |last=Thompson |first=Clive |date=29 March 2009 |access-date=6 July 2014 |newspaper=Wired magazine |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150805043857/http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-04/st_thompson |archive-date=2015-08-05}}</ref> from continuing their unwanted behavior or from sockpuppetry.<ref name="Vice Motherboard 2018" /><ref name="Walsh2006" />

==History== In the mid-1980s, BBS forums including ''Citadel'' BBS software had a "twit bit" for problematic users<ref name="Vice Motherboard 2018">{{cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |date=31 July 2018 |title=Where Did the Concept of 'Shadow Banning' Come From? |work=Motherboard |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/where-did-shadow-banning-come-from-trump-republicans-shadowbanned/ |access-date=1 August 2018}}</ref><ref name="Atwood 2011">{{cite web |url=http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/06/suspension-ban-or-hellban.html |title=Suspension, Ban or Hellban? |last=Atwood |first=Jeff |date=4 June 2011 |publisher=Coding Horror blog |access-date=17 December 2011 |archive-date=30 December 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111230182953/http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/06/suspension-ban-or-hellban.html }}</ref> which, when enabled, would limit the user's access while still allowing them to read public discussions; however, any messages posted by that "twit" would not be visible to the other members of that group.<ref name="Vice Motherboard 2018" /><ref name="Citadel">{{cite web |url=https://www.citadel.org/system_administration_manual.html |title=Manual installation of Citadel using source code and the command line client - Citadel.org |website=www.citadel.org |language=en |access-date=20 December 2020}}</ref>

The term "shadow ban" is believed to have originated with moderators on the website Something Awful in 2001, although the feature was only used briefly and sparsely.<ref name="Vice Motherboard 2018" />

Michael Pryor of Fog Creek Software described stealth banning for online forums in 2006, saying how such a system was in place in the project management system FogBugz, "to solve the problem of how do you get the person to go away and leave you alone". As well as preventing problem users from engaging in flame wars, the system also discouraged spammers, who if they returned to the site would be under the false impression that their spam was still in place.<ref name="Walsh2006">{{cite book |author=Robert Walsh|title=Micro-ISV: From Vision to Reality |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YKuYXO-LKrcC|date=12 January 2006 |publisher=Apress |isbn=978-1-4302-0114-4 |page=183 |quote=So one of the things we did in FogBugz to solve the problem of how do you get the person to go away and leave you alone is, well, you take their post and make it invisible to everyone else, but they still see it. They won't know they've been deleted. There's no one fanning their flame. You can't get into a flame war if no one responds to your criticism. So they get silenced and eventually just go away. We have several ways of telling if they come back, and it's been proven to be extremely, extremely effective. Say a spammer posts to your board and then they come back to check if it's still there, and they see it—to them it's still there—but no one else sees it, so they're not bothered by it.}}</ref> ''The Verge'' describes it as "one of the oldest moderation tricks in the book", noting that early versions of vBulletin had a global ignore list known as "Tachy goes to Coventry",<ref name="Verge 2017">{{cite web |url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/16/14635030/twitter-shadow-ban-moderation |title=One of Twitter's new anti-abuse measures is the oldest trick in the forum moderation book |last=Bohn |first=Dieter |date=16 February 2017 |website=The Verge |access-date=17 February 2017}}</ref> as in the British expression "to send someone to Coventry", meaning to ignore them and pretend they do not exist.

A 2012 update to Hacker News introduced a system of "hellbanning" for spamming and abusive behavior.<ref name="TechCrunch 2013 Hacker News">{{cite news |title = The Evolution of Hacker News |url = https://techcrunch.com/2013/05/18/the-evolution-of-hacker-news/ |publisher = TechCrunch |access-date = 10 August 2014 |author = Leena Rao |date= 18 May 2013}}</ref><ref name="Pando 2013 Hacker News">{{cite news |url=https://pando.com/2013/12/04/can-the-democratic-power-of-a-platform-like-hacker-news-be-applied-to-products/ |title=Can the democratic power of a platform like Hacker News be applied to products? |date=4 December 2013 |work=Pando |access-date=1 August 2018 |language=en-gb|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181204131849/https://pando.com/2013/12/04/can-the-democratic-power-of-a-platform-like-hacker-news-be-applied-to-products/|archive-date=4 Dec 2018}}</ref>

Early on, Reddit implemented (and continues to practice)<ref>{{cite web |last1=Shah |first1=Saqib |title=What is a 'shadow ban'? Lizzo claims TikTok is shutting her videos out of its algorithm |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/what-is-shadow-ban-social-media-check-lizzo-tiktok-b1080754.html |website=The Standard |date=12 May 2023 |access-date=8 February 2025}}</ref> shadow banning, purportedly to address spam accounts.<ref name="Reddit On Shadowbans">{{cite web|author1=krispykrackers|title=On shadowbans. • r/self|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/3ey0fv/on_shadowbans/|website=Reddit|language=en}}</ref> In 2015, Reddit added an account suspension feature that was said to have replaced its sitewide shadowbans, though moderators can still shadowban users from their individual subreddits via their AutoModerator configuration<ref name="TechCrunch 2015 Reddit">{{cite web|last1=Shu|first1=Catherine|date=November 11, 2015|title=Reddit Replaces Its Confusing Shadowban System With Account Suspensions|url=https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/11/reddit-account-suspensions/|access-date=16 September 2017|website=TechCrunch|language=en}}</ref> as well as manually. A Reddit user was accidentally shadow banned for one year in 2019; subsequently they contacted support and their comments were restored.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gerken |first=Tom |date=2019-04-11 |title=The Redditor who accidentally spent a year talking to himself |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-47888242 |access-date=2023-03-13}}</ref>

A study of tweets written in a one-year period during 2014 and 2015 found that over a quarter million tweets had been censored in Turkey via shadow banning.<ref name="Tanash et al. 2015 Turkey">{{cite book |last1=Tanash |first1=Rima S. |last2=Chen |first2=Zhouhan |last3=Thakur |first3=Tanmay |last4=Wallach |first4=Dan S. |last5=Subramanian |first5=Devika |title=Proceedings of the 14th ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society |chapter=Known Unknowns |date=1 January 2015 |series=WPES '15|location=New York, NY, USA |publisher=ACM |pages=11–20 |doi=10.1145/2808138.2808147 |isbn=978-1-4503-3820-2|s2cid=207229086 }}</ref> Twitter was also found, in 2015, to have shadowbanned tweets containing leaked documents in the US.<ref name="Intersect 2015 Twitter">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/30/a-guide-to-why-some-activists-believe-their-tweets-are-being-censored-in-the-u-s/|title=Tweets are disappearing on Twitter. Why? |last=Ohlheiser |first=Abby |date=30 October 2015 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=29 April 2017 |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref><ref name="Motherboard 2017 drone">{{cite web|last=Pearson|first=Jordan|date=October 19, 2015|title=Is Twitter Censoring a Blockbuster Report on US Drone Assassinations?|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/is-twitter-censoring-a-blockbuster-report-on-us-drone-assassinations/|access-date=26 July 2017|website=Motherboard|language=en-us}}</ref>

Craigslist has also been known to "ghost" a user's individual ads, whereby the poster gets a confirmation email and may view the ad in their account, but the ad fails to show up in the appropriate category page.<ref name="Chron Craigslist">{{cite web|last=Weedmark|first=David|title=How to Prevent Ghost Posting on Craigslist|url=http://smallbusiness.chron.com/prevent-ghost-posting-craigslist-46418.html|work=Chron.com}}</ref>

WeChat was found in 2016 to have banned, without any notification to the user, posts and messages that contain various combinations of at least 174 keywords, including "习包子" (Xi Bao Zi), "六四天安门" (June 4 Tiananmen), "藏青会" (Tibetan Youth Congress), and "ئاللاھ يولىدا" (in the way of Allah).<ref name="Citizen Lab 2017 WeChat">{{cite news|last1=Ruan|first1=Lotus|last2=Knockel|first2=Jeffrey|last3=Ng|first3=Jason Q.|last4=Crete-Nishihata|first4=Masashi|date=30 November 2016|title=One App, Two Systems: How WeChat uses one censorship policy in China and another internationally|language=en-US|work=The Citizen Lab|url=https://citizenlab.org/2016/11/wechat-china-censorship-one-app-two-systems/|access-date=29 April 2017}}</ref><ref name="Doctorow 2016 We Chat">{{cite web|last=Doctorow|first=Cory|date=December 2, 2016|title=China's We Chat "shadow-bans" messages with forbidden keywords, but only for China-based accounts|url=https://boingboing.net/2016/12/02/chinas-we-chat-shadow-bans.html|access-date=29 April 2017|website=Boing Boing}}</ref> Messages containing these keywords would appear to have been sent successfully but would not be visible on the receiving end.

In 2017, the phenomenon was noticed on Instagram, with posts which included specific hashtags not showing up when those hashtags were used in searches.<ref name="Mic 2017 Instagram">{{cite news|url=https://mic.com/articles/178987/instagrams-shadowban-explained-how-to-tell-if-instagram-is-secretly-blacklisting-your-posts |title=Instagram's "shadowban," explained: How to tell if Instagram is secretly blacklisting your posts |last=Lorenz |first=Taylor|author-link=Taylor Lorenz|date=7 June 2017 |work=Mic Network Inc. |access-date=4 November 2017 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Lifehacker 2017 Instagram">{{cite news|last=Wong|first=Kristin|date=April 23, 2017|title=How to See If Your Instagram Posts Have Been Shadowbanned|language=en-US|work=Lifehacker|url=https://lifehacker.com/how-to-see-if-your-instagram-posts-have-been-shadowbann-1794547574|access-date=4 November 2017}}</ref><ref name="Petapixel 2017 Instagram">{{cite web |url=http://petapixel.com/2017/03/28/photographers-claim-instagram-shadow-banning-accounts/ |title=Photographers Claim Instagram is 'Shadow Banning' Their Accounts |date=28 March 2017 |website=PetaPixel |access-date=26 April 2017}}</ref>

In December 2023, Human Rights Watch echoed the complaints of many Instagram and Facebook users who alleged a drastic reduction in visits to their posts and profiles when the content they posted was about Palestine or the Gaza Genocide, without prior notification from Meta.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Younes |first=Rasha |date=2023-12-21 |title=Meta's Broken Promises |url=https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and |journal=Human Rights Watch |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last1=Apodaca |first1=Tomas |last2=Uzcátegui-Liggett |first2=Natasha |date=2024-02-25 |title=How We Investigated Shadowbanning on Instagram – The Markup |url=https://themarkup.org/automated-censorship/2024/02/25/how-we-investigated-shadowbanning-on-instagram |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=themarkup.org |language=en}}</ref> The Markup's investigation confirmed that posts with war-related imagery or pro-Palestine hashtags were demoted. Hashtags like "#Palestine" or "#AlAqsa" were suppressed from the "Top Posts" section.<ref name=":0" /> Meta responded by claiming that this was due to a bug on the platform, which led to criticism about possible biases in the algorithm.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Meta responds to allegations of Instagram shadow-ban for pro-Palestine content |url=https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/meta-responds-to-allegations-of-instagram-shadow-ban-for-pro-palestine-content/ |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=Business & Human Rights Resource Centre |language=en}}</ref>

== Drawbacks ==

Given that shadow bans are mostly executed by automatic algorithms without initial human intervention,<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20563051221117552|title=Do Not Recommend? Reduction as a Form of Content Moderation|date=August 19, 2022|journal=Social Media + Society |author=Tarleton Gillespie |volume=8 |issue=3 |article-number=20563051221117552 |publisher=Sage |doi=10.1177/20563051221117552 |quote=Major platforms [...] have added reduction to their content moderation techniques. They use machine learning classifiers to identify content that is misleading enough, risky enough, and problematic enough to warrant reducing its visibility|doi-access=free }}</ref> and that the conditions for imposing them can be quite complex, there is always a percentage of false positives where a user is shadow banned even when the user did nothing wrong.

Because the shadow ban happens without the user being informed, the incorrectly banned user will not have a chance to contact the platform to revert it, unless the user finds out by their own means.

Another instance where shadow bans are problematic is when a user actually broke a rule, but it was in an unintended way, or in a way that did not imply bad intention nor was damaging for the community. For example, a user wrote a comment in an online platform, and the comment contained an URL to some legit not spamming source. The algorithm patrolling comments, instead of informing the user that URLs were not allowed and preventing the user from posting, would let the user post the comment with the URL but hiding the comment for everyone to see except the original poster.{{citation needed|reason=Essay|date=August 2025}}

If the user was informed beforehand about the rules broken, the user would have been able to write an compliant comment and avoid the shadow ban.

A wrongful ban is always undesired regardless of the reason, and creates an erosion of trust that disincentivises the user from further engaging with the platform. This is a negative loss when the user shadow banned was a good contributor to the platform.{{citation needed|reason=Essay|date=August 2025}}

== Legality ==

Although shadow banning can be an effective moderation tool, it can also have legal implications. If the platform implementing shadow banning does not mention such practice in their terms and conditions, it could effectively mean that the platform denied a service for no disclosed reason, and hence being in breach of contract.

In the European Union, the Digital Services Act (DSA) contains Article 17<ref>{{cite web |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng#art_17|title=Article 17, Digital Services Act|date=October 19, 2022|publisher=EUR-Lex, European Union}}</ref> that directly addresses moderation practices and service restrictions, forcing platforms to disclose the reasons for such restrictions:

<blockquote> Providers of hosting services shall provide a clear and specific statement of reasons to any affected recipients of the service for any of the following restrictions imposed on the ground that the information provided by the recipient of the service is illegal content or incompatible with their terms and conditions. </blockquote>

In 2024 a Dutch user of Twitter, under the DSA, sued this platform with the European small claims procedure in the Amsterdam District Court for breach of contract, and won the case.<ref>{{cite court |litigants = ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:3980 |court = Amsterdam District Court |date = 5 July 2024 |url= https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:3980}}</ref><ref name="DSAObservatory1">{{cite web |url=https://dsa-observatory.eu/2024/08/06/the-dsas-first-shadow-banning-case|title=The DSA's first shadow banning case|date=August 6, 2024|publisher=Digital Services Act (DSA) Observatory}}</ref> The plaintiff claimed that under the Article 17 DSA Twitter failed to proactively notify and provide a "clear and specific statement of reasons" for the demotion of his account, as it is required by this article.<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923000018|title=An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation|date=April 2023|journal=Computer Law & Security Review|publisher=Elsevier|author=Paddy Leerssen |volume=48 |article-number=105790 |doi=10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105790 |doi-access=free|hdl=11245.1/f2986a72-3655-4838-9754-088a758f51e3|hdl-access=free}}</ref> On its defence, Twitter claimed that in its terms and conditions there were clauses that allow them to modify access to functionalities and other obligations at any time. But the court deemed these clauses non-binding under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive, and hence dismissed its defence.<ref name="DSAObservatory1"/>

Another legal implication is a perceived violation of freedom of speech, depending on how this principle is codified in regulations around the world. In the European Union the DSA effectively bans shadow banning because Article 17 requires platforms to always disclose the reasons for a ban or restriction. In practice however this is not enforced most of the time.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://europrospects.eu/invisible-filters-shadow-banning-at-the-crossroads-of-free-speech-and-competition-law-in-the-eu|title=Shadow Banning, Content Moderation, Competition Law, and Free Speech: Navigating the Crossroads|date=December 30, 2024|publisher=Euro Prospects}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441056.2023.2200612|title=Antitrust shrugged? Boycotts, content moderation, and free speech cartels|date=April 14, 2023|journal=European Competition Journal |author=Jan Polański |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=334–358 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |doi=10.1080/17441056.2023.2200612 |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Shaping opinions in social networks with shadow banning|date=March 27, 2024|journal=PLOS ONE |author=Yen-Shao Chen, Tauhid Zaman |volume=19 |issue=3 |article-number=e0299977 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0299977 |pmid=38536798 |pmc=10971755 |arxiv=2310.20192 |bibcode=2024PLoSO..1999977C |doi-access=free }}</ref> Conversely, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect users' freedom of speech from shadow banning because its coverage only applies to American government interference, not to third-party private entities (like social networks).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2024/11/uc-journalism-professor-talks-about-shadow-banning-on-social-networks.html|title=Shadow banning: Are social networks suppressing political content?|date=November 24, 2024|author=Michael Miller|publisher=University of Cincinnati |quote=Blevins noted that the First Amendment protects speech from government intrusion, not a third-party company's actions.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.thefire.org/news/ftc-overstepping-its-authority-and-threatening-free-speech-online|title=The FTC is overstepping its authority — and threatening free speech online |date=February 21, 2025|publisher=Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression|author=Ari Cohn}}</ref>

== Controversies == ===Political controversies=== "Shadow banning" became popularized in 2018 as a conspiracy theory when Twitter shadow-banned some Republicans.<ref name="iYRJA">{{cite web |last=Romano |first=Aja |date=6 September 2018 |title=How hysteria over Twitter shadow-banning led to a bizarre congressional hearing |url=https://www.vox.com/2018/9/6/17824652/twitter-dorsey-energy-and-commerce-hearing-shadow-banning |work=Vox}}</ref> In late July 2018, ''Vice News'' found that several supporters of the US Republican Party no longer appeared in the auto-populated drop-down search menu on Twitter, thus limiting their visibility when being searched for; ''Vice News'' alleged that this was a case of shadow-banning.<ref name="iYRJA"/><ref name="7E24F">{{cite news |last=Thompson |first=Alex |date=26 July 2018 |title=Twitter appears to have fixed "shadow ban" of prominent Republicans like the RNC chair and Trump Jr.'s spokesman |work=Vice News |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/twitter-is-shadow-banning-prominent-republicans-like-the-rnc-chair-and-trump-jrs-spokesman/ |access-date=15 August 2018}}</ref> After the story, some conservatives accused Twitter of enacting a shadowban on Republican accounts, a claim which Twitter denied.<ref name="New York Times 2018">{{cite news |last=Stack |first=Liam |date=26 July 2018 |title=What Is a 'Shadow Ban,' and Is Twitter Doing It to Republican Accounts? |language=en |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/us/politics/twitter-shadowbanning.html}}</ref> However, some accounts that were not overtly political or conservative apparently had the same algorithm applied to them.<ref name="Twitter 2018">{{cite news |last=Eordogh |first=Fruzsina |date=31 July 2018 |title=Why Republicans Weren't The Only Ones Shadow Banned On Twitter |language=en |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2018/07/31/why-republicans-werent-the-only-ones-shadow-banned-on-twitter/#4b19426e434b }}</ref> Numerous news outlets, including ''The New York Times'', ''The Guardian'', ''BuzzFeed News'', Engadget and ''New York'' magazine, disputed the ''Vice News'' story.<ref name="New York Times 2018" /><ref name="7ekoT">{{Cite web |last=Warzel |first=Charlie |date=July 26, 2018 |title=Twitter Isn't Shadow-Banning Republicans. Here's Why. |url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/twitter-shadow-ban-republicans-bug |access-date=13 February 2019 |website=BuzzFeed News |language=en}}</ref><ref name="sSdR5">{{Cite web |last=Feldman |first=Brian |date=25 July 2018 |title=Twitter Is Not 'Shadow Banning' Republicans |url=http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/07/twitter-is-not-shadow-banning-republicans.html |access-date=13 February 2019 |website=Intelligencer}}</ref><ref name="HAEpB">{{Cite news |last=Wilson |first=Jason |date=27 July 2018 |title=What is 'shadow banning', and why did Trump tweet about it? |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jul/26/what-is-shadow-banning-conservatives-twitter-trump |access-date=13 February 2019 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref name="fe2m3">{{Cite web |author=Swapna Krishna |date=26 July 2018 |title=Twitter says supposed 'shadow ban' of prominent Republicans is a bug |url=https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/26/twitter-says-republican-shadow-ban-is-a-bug/ |access-date=13 February 2019 |website=Engadget |language=en}}</ref><ref name="yrJq9">{{Cite web |author=Laura Hazard Owen |date=27 July 2018 |title=Twitter's not "shadow banning" Republicans, but get ready to hear that it is |url=http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/07/twitters-not-shadow-banning-republicans-but-get-ready-to-hear-that-it-is/ |access-date=13 February 2019 |website=Nieman Lab}}</ref> In a blog post, 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.<ref name="QJt9Y">{{cite web |title=Setting the record straight on shadow banning |url=https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning.html |access-date=8 September 2018 |website=Twitter}}</ref> In the blog post, Twitter claims it does not shadow ban by using "the old, narrow, and classical" definition of shadow banning.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Shedding Light on Shadowbanning |url=https://cdt.org/insights/shedding-light-on-shadowbanning/ |access-date=2022-12-11 |website=Center for Democracy and Technology |date=26 April 2022 |page=37 |language=en-US}}</ref> Later, Twitter appeared to have adjusted its platform to no longer limit the visibility of some accounts.<ref name="Sba5n">{{cite web |author=Alex Thompson |date=26 July 2018 |title=Twitter appears to have fixed search problems that lowered visibility of GOP lawmakers |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/twitter-appears-to-have-fixed-search-problems-that-lowered-visibility-of-gop-lawmakers/ |access-date=28 March 2019 |website=Vice |language=en}}</ref> In a research study that examined more than 2.5 million Twitter profiles, it was discovered that almost one in 40 had been shadowbanned by having their replies hidden or having their handles hidden in searches.<ref name="gZEZs">{{cite arXiv |eprint=2012.05101 |class=cs.SI |first1=Erwan |last1=Le Merrer |first2=Benoit |last2=Morgan |title=Setting the Record Straighter on Shadow Banning |date=2020-12-09 |last3=Trédan |first3=Gilles}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Nicholas |first=Gabriel |date=2022-04-28 |title=Shadowbanning Is Big Tech's Big Problem |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/04/social-media-shadowbans-tiktok-twitter/629702/ |access-date=2022-12-09 |website=The Atlantic |language=en}}</ref>

During the 2020 Twitter account hijackings, hackers successfully managed to obtain access to Twitter's internal moderation tools via both social engineering and bribing a Twitter employee.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Cox |first1=Joseph |title=Hackers Convinced Twitter Employee to Help Them Hijack Accounts |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/twitter-insider-access-panel-account-hacks-biden-uber-bezos/ |website=Vice.com |date=15 July 2020 |publisher=Vice |access-date=21 January 2024}}</ref> Through this, images were leaked of an internal account summary page, which in turn revealed user "flags" set by the system that confirmed the existence of shadow bans on Twitter. Accounts were flagged with terms such as "Trends Blacklisted" and "Search Blacklisted" implying that the user was not able to publicly trend, or show up in public search results. After the situation was dealt with, Twitter faced accusations of censorship with claims that they were trying to hide the existence of shadow bans by removing tweets that contained images of the internal staff tools used. However, Twitter claimed they were removed as they revealed sensitive user information.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Nathaniel |first1=Popper |last2=Kate |first2=Conger |title=Hackers Tell the Story of the Twitter Attack From the Inside |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/technology/twitter-hackers-interview.html |work=The New York Times |date=17 July 2020 |access-date=21 January 2024}}</ref>

On December 8, 2022, the second thread of the Twitter Files—a series of Twitter threads based on internal Twitter, Inc. documents shared by owner Elon Musk with independent journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss—addressed a practice referred to as "visibility filtering" by previous Twitter management. The functionality included tools allowing accounts to be tagged as "Do not amplify", and under "blacklists" that reduce their prominence in search results and trending topics. It was also revealed that certain conservative accounts, such as the far-right Libs of TikTok, had been given a warning stating that decisions regarding them should only be made by Twitter's Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support (SIP–PES) team—which consists primarily of high-ranking officials. The functions were given by Musk and other critics as examples of "shadow banning".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Shapero |first=Julia |date=8 December 2022 |title=Former NYT columnist Bari Weiss releases 'Twitter Files Part Two' |work=The Hill |url=https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3768087-former-nyt-columnist-bari-weiss-releases-twitter-files-part-two/ |access-date=9 December 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Urquhart |first=Evan |date=2022-12-09 |title=The Anti-Trans Hate Account That Bari Weiss Says Is Yet Another Right-Wing Voice Censored by Twitter |url=https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/twitter-files-bari-weiss-libsoftik-elon-musk.html |access-date=2022-12-09 |website=Slate Magazine |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-12-09 |title=The Twitter Files, Part Two, Explained |url=https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-twitter-files-bari-weiss-part-two-shadow-ban-1849876635 |access-date=2022-12-09 |website=Gizmodo |language=en}}</ref>

===Conspiracy theories=== {{expand section|date=November 2025}} Social media companies have seen significant numbers of users accusing these platforms of shadowbanning their content. The platforms alleged to engage in this behavior include Twitter,<ref name="Vice Motherboard 2018" /> Facebook,<ref name="sSdR5" /> YouTube and Instagram.

== References == {{reflist}}

Category:Internet censorship Category:Internet trolling Category:Punishments Category:Excluded people