It's a bigger problem in general with both Twitter/FB and how they filter the order content is displayed (sometimes called "the filter bubble") in order to drive up engagement and revenue.

The average person doesn't care about federated social networks and the average dev or admin doesn't have the time outside of work to setup and maintain one for his or herself.

It's interesting to me that you probably don't care that this isn't true, nor is it true that Twitter ever decides to not show your tweets to a subset of your followers through a "shadowban". You just say whatever. Doesn't affect you whether it's true or not and if other people believe you, hey that's pretty funny that people just believe things you make up or misunderstood.

That's why I almost never use the Twitter web site or their app. Too confusing. I stick with Tweetbot which still only shows the complete timeline in reversed chronological order.

Only if you have "Show me the best tweets first" enabled. (It's on by default)

> That is how twitter works - it doesn't show every tweet from everyone you follow in your timeline, it shows a subset based on what it considers most relevant.

If this is true, this is the same as Facebook does.

And for this reason I can't bother checking Facebook any more. Can't see what's in that for twitter?

Facebook is not showing me the posts from people I know, but instead advertisement and "reactions" it thinks I may like. Which I give a utter fuck about.

It's just another one of those things which just makes me stop caring.

If twitter knows what best for them, they should definitely not copy this UX anti-pattern of overruling the users explicit choice (about whose posts they want to follow).

And it would be convenient if Scott Adams' political tweets were considered "irrelevant" more often than others, wouldn't it?

There were also reports that followers would be automatically unfollowed. They wouldn't hear from Scott for a while, so they'd check and realize he was no longer followed. Maybe they slipped and accidentally hit "Unfollow" while scrolling through their feed one day. Maybe it was a one-time glitch. Or maybe it wasn't.

While it's true that such things could easily be imaginary, it's also true that they easily could not be. The idea behind these pseudo-bans is to discourage undesirable users from using the platform, and they do happen on many platforms (can't speak definitively for Twitter).

For example, my HN account was intentionally slowed by YC for years. Each page load would take several seconds. When I asked politely if they could lift it after putting up with it for a couple of years, they confirmed it had been intentionally slowed, but couldn't tell why, and graciously agreed to lift the punishment, which I'm still grateful for. :)