zlacker

>Nobody has demonstrated any difference between Twitter's description of its own policies and the actual facts.

For both the Trump ban and the Hunter Biden story, it seems Twitter did not follow its own policies.

>Taibbi and Weiss have confirmed that such functionality does not appear to exist in Twitter.

Where?

In any case, I think this depends heavily on exactly how you define "shadowbanning". You can define "shadowbanning" so it conveniently excludes all the account-level suppression Twitter did. But the broader point is: Why weren't they transparent about the type of account-level suppression they were doing?

>There's similarly no evidence that Musk's child was "physically threatened" other than his own say-so, and he's a known liar.

I'm not sure what lying you are referring to. In any case, are you willing to grant that Elon's actions are understandable if he's telling the truth about his child?

>>ShredK+(OP)
Please don't change subjects. We were talking about "shadowbanning", not Hunter Biden. Twitter has stated for years that they have controls to prevent algorithmic recommendation of particular users, content, or trends, and that's precisely what we saw reported on by Taibbi and Weiss. They had direct access to Twitter internals and did not report any "shadowbanning" functionality. It's fair to assume that they would have reported it if it existed.

No, I don't think it's understandable for Musk to respond to someone stalking him by modifying Twitter policies to retaliate against another person with no connection to the stalking.