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.
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.
[17] 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).
[25][27][28][29][30][31] 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.
[37] 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.
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.
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.
[42] To explain why users may come to believe they are subject to "shadow bans" even when they are not, Elaine Moore of the Financial Times writes:[42] Like Uber drivers and Deliveroo couriers, social media influencers are at the mercy of algorithms.
Instead of believing that their own popularity is waning, some cling to the idea that shadowbans are a disciplinary measure that is used against creators who do not warrant an outright ban from a platform.