"A shadow-ban is when a user is blocked from a social media site or online forum without their knowledge. This is typically done by making their posts and comments invisible to others. The experience is like being on “
invisible mode”: only the banned user can see their own posts, meaning they may not realise they have been shadowbanned..."
See
https://charitydigital.org.uk/topics/topics/a-guide-to-shadowbanning-10642 for a careful good-faith overview of what shadow-banning is, which "Forbes also notes can impact growth and income
for business owners and artists."
This presumably partly explains Bloomberg's interest when interference in business (and other) promotions may be going on. "Bloomberg Media's mission is to empower business leaders and our brand partners by inventing the solutions, knowledge and connections they need to thrive in a transforming world. We do this through deep, smart, global reporting of the world of business, powered by unmatched data and the world's largest newsroom." -
https://www.bloombergmedia.com/about/
Paul D’Alessandro, founder and chairman of High Impact Nonprofit Advisors warns that "organisations that focus on “controversial” issues should plan for the possibility of being shadow-banned."
In outing deliberate biased strategies engaged in not only by social media platforms but also by state agencies and all kinds of influential figures with grudges, Matt Taibbi beats much less about the bush -
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._a_public-private_censorship_bureaucracy.html
If some such agency or person who took a dislike to, for example Morrissey, on releasing singles like Rebels Without Applause, then took a notion to punish that person by restricting their public reach, this is how they could, and evidently, in an increasing number of cases, have been doing it.
Is there any chance Jason Leopold would go the extra mile and check out this speculation, I wonder?