Everyone seems to be ignoring the definition of a shadow ban that was given when the claim was made and using a different definition that would make the statement a lie.
Semantics is the weakest form of argument. Trying to use doublespeak now to pretend they weren't lying is ridiculous. Twitter was lying and got caught red handed. I'm sure the abuse goes even further than what we've already seen, and what we've already seen is enough to distrust our government. When you look into all the details of ex-alphabet boys getting positions in Twitter to make their manipulation easier from the inside and it's clear as day that this has been happening. Although everyone already knew this because it was obvious. Now it's fact instead of conspiracy theory. The really crazy part is that YouTube and Facebook are even worse offenders but have deeper pockets to avoid a buyout. I hope this latest set of events has them terrified and questioning their bad behavior. I hope it all comes to light in the end and liberals are able to digest they've been brainwashed while being mature enough to switch their views based on their new understanding of reality.
Try to put your hatred for the libs and love of Elon aside and look at this rationally.
They clearly defined 'shadow ban' at the time of claiming they don't shadow ban people. It's a reasonable definition. imo, it's the most reasonable definition.
They clearly explained that they did do what people are now claiming is shadow banning (making it harder to discover some tweets without following the user or searching for them).
Because they provided the definition when making the claim, there's really no semantic debate on what they meant. We know exactly what they meant. You can't read their
statement on shadowbanning and argue in good faith that "they said they didn't shadow ban, now we know they do, they lied about not shadow banning". It's just not logical.
Semantics is the weakest form of argument.
Irrational, bad faith, uninformed arguments are weaker.
