It doesn't matter what "most people" would consider, because Twitter provided their definition of the term at the time. People disagree about all sorts of terms, and that's totally fair, but what Weiss is doing is retconning her own personal definition of the term on Twitter's policy statements, which were unambiguous. She is, in turn, being unambiguously dishonest.
It's interesting how selective people are about the supposed Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.
Right, Twitter provided their own definition which delicately tiptoes around the unsavory issue and Weiss expanded the definition to suit her own self-interests.
How does that make what "most people" would consider not matter? Seems like a non-sequitur to me but maybe I'm not understanding your point.
Agreed, it's rare for any service to outright say "we shadow ban" as done here [1] for example.
And, most services still use a form of shadow moderation [2]. So it's perfectly fine to discuss here. Attempts to shut down conversation are just that.
Because the thread is about Weiss's claims. If you want to talk about how Twitter's definition of shadow-banning is problematic, or their moderation practices in general, start another top-level thread.
It's interesting how selective people are about the supposed Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.