Thread by @Netzdenunziant

A thread on how MSM failed to report on shadow bans:
Sputnik News did a better job reporting on the shadow banning issue than most MSM sites. Others simply allowed Twitter to define the term and then used that definition in order to disprove the claims by Twitter's opponents.

Twitter even violates their own definition. They do shadow ban and there is evidence which can be reproduced. Ghost commenting (which we call thread ban) is the very original form of shadow banning. There is no way to not call this type of ban shadow ban.

vimeo.com/282066400

Let's have a look at how Wikipedia defines shadow ban. There are very good reasons to also call #QFD shadow ban, too. #QFD causes your tweets to be invisible within certain parts of Twitter by default. Making them visible requires you to disable the quite well-hidden filter.

The user is not notified about them being affected by the filter either.
If you now simply claim that someone who is affected by the filter is not shadow banned, you ignore the intention of the definition. You cannot call that good or impartial journalism.
mirror.co.uk/news/politics/…

How credible is this type of journalism if you ignore these facts and even ridicule the people who claim that they have been shadow banned? Those people have run many checks and the crowd is intelligent enough to detect the bias against conservatives.

In contrary to the fact checker belonging to our public broadcaster, who used a tester that did not test the quality filter in a piece about the filter, alternative media have set a positive example in researching technical details.
faktenfinder.tagesschau.de/inland/twitter…
breitbart.com/tech/2018/07/2…