Economist feigns ignorance about Internet’s most common form of censorship: shadowbanning!
Imagine a classroom of 5th graders in history, and a couple of know-it-alls always putting their hands up, disrupting your otherwise perfect design. You ignore them. That is shadowbanning.
The couple is still around, you just don’t give them a platform: neither word nor attention. In fact, you treat them as if they were no there.
Deplatforming the undesirable
It happens in the digital world all the time, where social media platforms decide which persons to feature and which to delist, derank, and demonetize. Currently, the left-leaning social networks Facebook, Twitter, and Google and Youtube are shadowbanning conservative, right-leaning voices.
The left-leaning Economist magazine knows this well. It itself bans conservative voices from its publication. In past decades, this was called censorship. These days, we just don’t give those undesirable persons a digital platform. Shadowbanning.
“A shadowban, in theory, curtails the ways in which that attention may … about how such algorithms work that gives rise to conspiracy theories.”-Economist
Economist is a lying waste of tree
All said and rhymed, the Economist denies that shadowbanning on the Internet exists at all, calling it a conspiracy theory. Shame on you, Economist. Wait, now I am banned from commenting in your comment section? That kind of proofs my point, doesn’t it?