What shall we call that instead, "bubble ban", since it is like a shadow ban for specific bubbles and for everyone else it is as if that bubble never existed on the site?
Bubble ban is also poor verbiage because not appearing in anyone's feed or search results is the default condition not inherently a punishment or redaction.
A search is inherently a selection process and it's perfectly valid to say some content isn't fit to appear anywhere in a listing.
I like reddits choice of "quarantined"
It isn't the same at all, since Reddit tells you about it and it still shows up in search etc. Shadow quarantined, yeah that works. The word "shadow" comes from not telling the user that anything is different, and Twitter doesn't tell you when this happens, it just delists your posts from everywhere except your followers.
Anyway, it is extremely disingenuous to say that Twitter doesn't shadow ban.
Consider this scenario: Person A is shadow moderated by Twitter, has a friend B. A replies to B's tweet, but his friend doesn't follow him, they just talk. And now B will never see A's tweet, and A has no idea that B can't see it, and neither do B, both thinks that they can see each other. What is this if not "shadow banned"? Twitter makes these people post things thinking it will be seen, but it wont, wasting their time and potentially hurting their mental health since nobody responds.
For all intents and purposes this is "shadow banning", when you hurt people like this but say that you absolutely don't shadow ban you are so dishonest that I'd still call it a lie.
Deindexed/delisted. Same as we called it before "shadow ban" was widely known as a term.
Twitter does that, it doesn't tell you that what you post wont be reached by the people you are posting to. Most people don't have many followers, they just reply to tweets and those replies will show up for the original tweeters. Twitter shadow banning you means that the items you post no longer shows up as responses. Sure the small subset that follows you can still see them, but 99.99999% of twitter wont see it, so it is a 99.99999% of a shadow ban.
If they told you that any of this happened anywhere it wouldn't be a shadow ban.
It does not. Delisting = removed from list. Deindexed: removed from index.
Banning implies denying access. There's an important distinction there with Twitter (user authenticates and publishes through Twitter) vs Google Search (indexes public sites). If Google silently stops showing your Google Ads and doesn't inform you, that would be more appropriately described as "shadow banning".
There's no "user" or "account" in a web search engine so the term doesn't really fit.
Edit for clarity.
If you use Bing webmaster tools (a logged-in account for the use of the domain owner/content creator) and you can see indications that Bing indexed the content and no indications that errors preventing it from being eligible to show then it is certainly at least closer to a shadow ban than I originally thought.
Still, any reference to a "feed" entirely misses the point unless Bing is the one also serving that feed. I can't see any evidence that Bing displays a feed to the poster.
Regardless of whether you were notified, if you can see that you are banned, it is by definition not a shadow ban.
Shadow ban is explicity "pretend to user they are not banned, but don't show it to everyone else"
Like say getting shadow banned on reddit or HN, you will see your stuff when you're logged in, but anonymous or other people wont.
Search equivalent would be you getting your own site when you're searching but nobody else does