Questioning Everything Propaganda
Republished from February 7th, 2025
In an age where online discourse has become the lifeblood of public debate, the concept of “shadow banning” has risen to the forefront of conversations about transparency, free speech, and digital ethics. Shadow banning refers to the practice of limiting the visibility of a user’s content—often without the user’s knowledge—on platforms such as search engines (Google, DuckDuckGo), video streaming services (YouTube, Bitchute, Rumble), and social media channels (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and others). While platform providers often assert that this practice is designed to combat spam or abusive content, critics argue that it can also be used to suppress certain political views or individuals. This article explores the realities of shadow banning across major digital platforms, examining notable case studies and legal actions. In doing so, we also introduce a novel alternative called “Common Grounds,” developed by Jason Page of Page Telegram, which aims to bring a fresh approach to online discourse.
Shadow banning occurs when a platform deliberately reduces or removes the visibility of a user’s content to the broader audience, typically without issuing an explicit ban or notifying the user. From the user’s perspective, they can still post and interact with the site, but their content may no longer appear in public feeds, search results, or other indexes. This practice differs from a traditional ban, which is overt and clearly communicated. In contrast, shadow banning is subtle, making it difficult for users—or their followers—to realize that content is being effectively muted.
Google’s algorithms are opaque and extremely sophisticated. Accusations of shadow banning typically involve claims that Google’s search ranking algorithms disproportionately hide or downrank certain topics. Although Google denies systematic political bias, critics have pointed to internal documents suggesting various forms of algorithmic filtering.
DuckDuckGo, a privacy-focused search engine, promotes itself as offering neutral search results without extensive tracking or personalization. Although any ranking system carries some degree of bias, DuckDuckGo is generally perceived to be less prone to allegations of deliberate political filtering when compared to Google.
As the world’s largest video platform, YouTube enforces strict community guidelines. It is known to demonetize or downrank content considered harmful, controversial, or in violation of policy. Critics argue these measures can devolve into shadow banning, where content is not officially removed but is rendered difficult to discover through algorithmic suppression.
Bitchute and Rumble emerged as alternatives for creators who felt marginalized by YouTube’s more stringent moderation. These platforms have more lenient content policies but smaller user bases, thus sometimes providing less reach. Nonetheless, many users appreciate the freer exchange of ideas, even if they do so within smaller communities.
On major social media services such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok, shadow banning accusations are common. One high-profile example was Twitter’s 2018 “quality filter” (Conger, 2018), which critics claimed disproportionately impacted conservative accounts. Twitter denied political bias, describing the practice as a broad method to deter spam and toxic content.
Legal actions have occasionally been pursued by individuals or organizations who argue that shadow banning violates rights to free expression. However, due to Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, platforms have broad discretion in moderating user-generated content. This typically makes it difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in court.
As frustrations mount over perceived bias, a wave of alternative or decentralized platforms—such as Mastodon, Gab, and Parler—have taken root. However, many of these communities become echo chambers for specific ideological positions, hampering their ability to foster genuine cross-spectrum dialogue.
Due for release on or around February 14, 2025, “Common Grounds”—developed by Jason Page of Page Telegram—aims to be a platform that transcends identity-based political segregation. By adopting innovative moderation and content format strategies, it aspires to promote balanced debate and genuine discourse among users of different backgrounds and viewpoints.
Shadow banning remains a contentious element of online content moderation, as platforms try to balance free expression, user experience, and community standards. While Google, YouTube, Facebook, X, and others continue to be scrutinized for alleged hidden bias, new ventures like Bitchute, Rumble, and niche social networks have sought to fill perceived gaps in the market, many of which have contributed to misconceptions resulting in a divided public.
Enter “Common Grounds,” a text-only, transparent, and community-driven platform that is poised to challenge the entrenched norms of digital communication. By leaning into ASCII art conversions, RSS feeds, and JSON imports, it presents a refreshing, minimalist take on social networking. Whether it can amass a robust, diverse user base and maintain a fair moderation system could decide if it truly becomes the go-to alternative for free and open discourse in the years ahead.