From: “ Our approach to policy development and enforcement philosophy ” 1) Someone submits a report , twitter looks at “targeting” in the form of tagging, mentioning, and “more” (means of spread). When determining whether to take enforcement action, we may consider a number of factors ... W e enforce policies when someone reports abusive behavior that targets a specific person or group of people. This targeting can happen in a number of ways (for example, @mentions, tagging a photo, mentioning them by name, a nd more) ... F riendly banter between friends could appear offensive to bystanders, and certain remarks that are acceptable in one culture or country may not be acceptable in another. To help prevent our teams from making a mistake and removing consensual interactions, i n certain scenarios we require a report from the actual target (or their authorized representative) prior to taking any enforcement action. 2) Decision Factors for “enforcement” : impact, source, availability of alternative coverage. They evaluate what the impact is to people that do not know about the content. If the impact is minimal according to twitter’s discretion, they will most likely remove content in “violation” of their p olicies Is the behavior newsworthy and in the legitimate public interest? Some of the factors that help inform our decision - making about content are the impact it may have on the public, the source of the content, and the availability of alternative coverage of an event. We will consider what the impact is to citizens if they d o not know about this content. If the Tweet does have the potential to impact the lives of large numbers of people, the running of a country, and/or it speaks to an important societal issue then we may allow the the content to remain on the service. Likewi se, if the impact on the public is minimal we will most likely remove content in violation of our policies. 3) Some “groups” may be considered a legitimate topic of public interest. Twitter will consider by “particular” tweets. Twitter will take into accoun t the role of the conversation to the context of the larger story before taking action, and if that content can be found elsewhere. Some people, groups, organizations and the content they post on Twitter may be considered a topic of legitimate public interest by virtue of their being in the public consciousness. This does not mean that their Tweets will always remain on the service. Ra ther, we will consider if there is a legitimate public interest for a particular Tweet to remain up so it can be openly discussed. Everyday people play a crucial role in providing firsthand accounts of what’s happening in the world, counterpoints to estab lishment views, and, in some cases, exposing the abuse of power by someone in a position of authority . As a situation unfolds, removing access to certain information could inadvertently hide context and/or prevent people from seeing every side of the issue . Thus, before actioning a potentially violating Tweet, we will take into account the role it plays in showing the larger story and whether that content can be found elsewhere. From: “ Our range of enforcement options ” 1) The wording here was shocking to me and may need confirmation but the period can mean a separation of clauses and indicate that Twitter may also enforce in response to a request from an “authorized entity” in a given country. Here they are stating they CA N limit tweet visibility on search results, replies, and timelines. We may employ a combination of these options. In some instances, this is because the behavior violates the Twitt er Rules Other times, it may be in response to a valid and properly scoped request from an authorized entity in a given country ... few of the ways in which we might take action at the Tweet level include: Limiting Tweet visibility: This makes content less visible on Twitter, in search results, replies, and on timelines. Limiting Tweet visibility depends on a number of signals about the nature of the interaction and the quality of the content. 2) Label “sensitive” to limit viewership. Placing a Tweet behind a notice: We may place some forms of sensitive media like adult content or graphic violence behind an interstitial advising viewers to be aware that they will see sensitive media if they click through . This allows us to identify potentially sensitive content that some people may not wish to see. In summary, when someone submits a report Twitter will look at the way such “targeting” is spread. They evaluate what the impact of the “targeting” is to the people that do NOT know about the content, if the impact is “minimal” according to twitter’s discretion they will most likely take action against the “targeting”. It is Twitter themselves that determine what “groups” are considered legitimate. More importantly Twitter determines what the “larger story” is and how these groups play a role to Twitter’s version of the “larger story”. A big factor for determining if to tak e action on the “targeting” is if the content of these “groups” can be found somewhere else. (reddit). Twitter admits they may enforce in response to a targeted individual or group or in response to an “authorized entity in a country” that they CAN limit t weet visibility on search results, replies, and timelines and even label non - violating content as sensitive according to their determination process From “Setting the record straight on shadow banning” People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not. But let’s start with, “what is shadow banning?” The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster. We do not shadow ban. You are a lways able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile). And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology. We do rank tweets and search results In this blog post by cofounder and legal lead they attempt to say twitter does not shadow ban, though their policy I broke down otherwise states the contrary. After analyzing their choice of words it is evident that they give an incorrect definition to “shadowbanning”=”undiscorevable to everyone except the person who posted it” That does not answer limiting certain “groups” they do mention “you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile” that screams shadow banning to me. Then they go and say they do “rank tweets and search results” because they do not want to contradict their terms which after analyzing thoroughly conclude that they can suppress certain groups. Now let’s look at the following social media landscaping. The following landscape examines 3,000 Tweets 09/30/2021 mentioning “#GME” The cluster formations indicate reach and transmission along the twitter landscape. The larger the cluster network the furhter the reach. The g# square divisions indicate how indiv iduals are grouped. Focusing on the largest cluster, you can see the dual “amc” “gme” narrative clusters have the most reach for “#GME” Notable “GME” only narratives are casted to the shadows of the “#GME” conversation: The dual “#” of both AMC an d GME has brought this group relevant to the “GME” narrative, on a large scale: There are a lot of conclusions that can be drawn from this. The “#GME” narrative will be examined daily going forward on a daily basis to strengthen the following conclusion. So far u/absolute_destruction’s data analysis is that the GME - only people in the “#GME” narrative on twitter are no longer the leaders of the narrative. The cause has to be further examined, but I am highly suspicious of what twitter’s own po licy says they can do, and what they have done to censor key findings in the GME movement such as when they deleted “#kengriffinlied” tweets because someone submitted a “report” The possibility that the same entity that submitted the report also submitted a report on “#GME” only apes is not a far reach after analyzing twitter’s own policy and what is happening on the social media landscape. I state this case to intrigue the community and investigate further. I hope this work is not buried and can be used as a foundation for research and to protect our movement from possible censorship.