Ask HN: How to get un-shadow banned on Twitter?
16 comments
> This is worst than actual banning. I've been living in the shadows for who knows how long.
You put too much personal value on a free social media website that has no obligation to its users.
> What can I do?
Stop using Twitter.
You put too much personal value on a free social media website that has no obligation to its users.
> What can I do?
Stop using Twitter.
You need to stop your bot altogether, then you wait a few weeks, then maybe they will remove the shadow ban in your account.
Having a Twitter bot is hard due to that exact reason: Even if you are using the API in the way Twitter intended, they will shadow ban your account if you are tweeting a lot of tweets with similar content.
That was my experience with developing bots for Twitter, however my main account didn't get shadow banned, only the bot's account.
Having a Twitter bot is hard due to that exact reason: Even if you are using the API in the way Twitter intended, they will shadow ban your account if you are tweeting a lot of tweets with similar content.
That was my experience with developing bots for Twitter, however my main account didn't get shadow banned, only the bot's account.
Honestly im not sure there is much you can do. I had 3 twitter accounts: my personal one that I’ve had for 10+ years, a programming one, and a political one. All 3 were shadowbanned as far as I know (using one of those online tools to check accounts) and no idea for how long. I don’t get a lot of followers and any of them until recently.
When Elon Musk started to purchase twitter I checked again and all 3 weren’t shadowbanned anymore.
When Elon Musk started to purchase twitter I checked again and all 3 weren’t shadowbanned anymore.
Why should it be illegal? Why are you entitled to usage of Twitter and to the time of their employees? How much do you pay per month and what does your contract say?
Anyways, I sympathize - I think generating outrage on HN is about your best option. But let's not talk about illegality here, it's still a free service. You're not going to get free human time from any other kind of company, so why should internet companies give it to you?
Anyways, I sympathize - I think generating outrage on HN is about your best option. But let's not talk about illegality here, it's still a free service. You're not going to get free human time from any other kind of company, so why should internet companies give it to you?
Fraud should generally be ilegal
because of the first amendment and stuff.
also I didn't say don't ban. I said don't shadowban. that's worse than banning.
also I didn't say don't ban. I said don't shadowban. that's worse than banning.
I know it's very American to think constitution applies universally, but unless Twitter becomes a government agency - they owe you nothing.
If a private entity de-platforms you, you will have no claim against them, unless you have a contract with them that's been violated (i.e. you pay for the services and they deny the said service). If I stuff a sock in your mouth and tape it up, I'd be liable for the assault & battery, not for the first amendment violation. If a government official stuffs a sock in your mouth and tape it up - you might have a chance to claim first amendment violation, but even then it might be a stretch :)
If a private entity de-platforms you, you will have no claim against them, unless you have a contract with them that's been violated (i.e. you pay for the services and they deny the said service). If I stuff a sock in your mouth and tape it up, I'd be liable for the assault & battery, not for the first amendment violation. If a government official stuffs a sock in your mouth and tape it up - you might have a chance to claim first amendment violation, but even then it might be a stretch :)
Maybe Twitter doesn't owe individuals anything in particular but as a collective society I think we should be asking if it's okay for private companies that control a lot of online discourse for them to silently ban with no transparency. How do we know they're not making decisions based on a conflict of interest? Maybe there's some area for social media regulation.
I'm not arguing that tech giants shouldn't run the risk of becoming public utilities - after all, quite a lot of their success could be attributed to utilising public resources, either directly or indirectly (user data, monopolistic approach to business, lack of relevant regulation at the time they were in their explosive growth periods, etc).
I could even see it as a potential way to balance public and private interests - if you try to consolidate too much - you run the risk of losing your private status and becomes a mix of private/public company, where some of the protections afforded to private businesses no longer apply.
There have been examples of these things happening, notably how railway became so dominant around the world that governments intervened and nationalised them. There's no way of knowing how long the current tech giant status quo will last - will it get worse or will they get slapped down.
I could even see it as a potential way to balance public and private interests - if you try to consolidate too much - you run the risk of losing your private status and becomes a mix of private/public company, where some of the protections afforded to private businesses no longer apply.
There have been examples of these things happening, notably how railway became so dominant around the world that governments intervened and nationalised them. There's no way of knowing how long the current tech giant status quo will last - will it get worse or will they get slapped down.
I'm afraid this might get bad quickly, with people demanding to post their stuff on my server and me having to keep it there and online - what if I just want to turn it off? So far my own server is sacrosanct, and as a hacker that runs a lot of my own services and has a little platform for my gaming community, I don't want to see that protection broken.
First amendment doesn't mean you'll be given space anywhere and anytime you want. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. They allowed you to post things onto their property for a while - doesn't mean you have a right to that forever. You're free to set up your own website on your own hosting and/or under your own management - and thus your own rules.
But yeah shadowbanning really isn't nice and I agree that it shouldn't be used against actual humans who just wanted to say something. It's an important tool against bots and propagandists (I mean state-sponsored actors here) though.
But yeah shadowbanning really isn't nice and I agree that it shouldn't be used against actual humans who just wanted to say something. It's an important tool against bots and propagandists (I mean state-sponsored actors here) though.
isn't there some law about freedom of press and social media counts as, well, the media?
oh well, not a lawyer. just wanting my visibility back.
oh and, it's important against bots on paper. I don't know if you use twitter but it's a mess with respect to bots...
oh and, it's important against bots on paper. I don't know if you use twitter but it's a mess with respect to bots...
Freedom of press applies to the government silencing the press. Your situation is more like if you were writing a column in a newspaper - and then that particular media stops liking your writing for whatever reason. Freedom of press won't help you in that case, but you're free to go make your own platform - that's what freedom of press covers.
I don't use Twitter but I run a small platform (oldschool forum) and without shadowbanning it'd be impossible to curb the bots. They immediately react to a classic ban.
I don't use Twitter but I run a small platform (oldschool forum) and without shadowbanning it'd be impossible to curb the bots. They immediately react to a classic ban.
Nope, it’s a natural right. Hence the “Congress shall make no law…” part. “Freedom of press won't help you in that case” is nonsensical.
Freedom of press won't help you get your articles into somebody's newspaper is what I meant, or do you disagree with that? As I understand it freedom of press protects the right to create/publish newspapers, not the right to post content into (any) newspapers. Media are private property and that would infringe on the rights of the owners.
If Ben Franklin decided that he didn't want to spend his ink publishing someone's newspaper column, who would have forced him to reverse his ban?
So I suspected this for a while but I finally confirmed it - I was shadow banned; to my understanding this is likely because I opened a bot (commands on @mention) account with same mail/phone or whatever.
This is worst than actual banning. I've been living in the shadows for who knows how long.
Recently I gained some momentum - one of my threads (same handle, @high_byte) got relatively viral and I doubled my followers overnight. (from 300 to almost 600 lol)
But still I am invisible to the world. [email protected] auto-replies with basically "we don't answer via email". Their support page has only Q&A and no contact information. This should be illegal!
What can I do?