It's called a temporary suspension. Twitter asks you to acknowledge your tweet was bad by deleting it yourself. If you do, you get a time-out in the naughty corner for 12 hours, or a week, or whatever, and then you can tweet again. If you don't, you stay in the naughty corner. Whoever designed this process could stand to learn how to treat people like adults, in my opinion.

She has already been fired so the lesson is moot.

> Whoever designed this process could stand to learn how to treat people like adults, in my opinion.

So, simply shadow ban them, then?

If you're referring to HN policy then for an established account it's not really shadowbanning, because dang will tell you that you're banned and why. Being treated as a useless noob until proven otherwise is being treated as an adult.

Twitter is different (although perhaps more different than it needs to be). Seeing as you ask, here is how to handle content deletion on Twitter without infantilizing users.

Don't ask a user to "delete" a tweet – something which has no effect on that tweet's visibility anyway. Just hide it and tell him why. If the user chooses to appeal, that appeal can go forward without restricting the use of the account. Hand out time-outs sparingly. They should be more of a final warning than a routine measure. If it's necessary to give a time-out, start the clock immediately, not when the user takes some action.

Why is banned vs Twitter jail (or whatever the term is) a meaningful distinction?

It only matters when you're trying to determine if Musk or someone else at Twitter actually un-banned or un-twitter-jailed someone. If the account was merely restricted then it's possible the account owner themselves did whatever is required to un-restrict their own account (i.e., deleted some offending tweet).