That's not shadow-banning

They fucked up and admitted it (what algo is infallible?)

The fuckup wasn't targeted, it was algorithmic, and it affected both sides of the isle.

Your link literally demonstrates the opposite of your claim.

Unless I’ve missed something there’s still no evidence of Twitter shadow banning users. Weiss incorrectly calls a bunch of things “shadow banning” but not anything the matches the actual accepted definition.

Limiting reach is not the same as shadow banning which has a specific meaning.

"Limiting reach" is what Twitter users think shadowbanning is. I've seen major accounts declare that, because less people are retweeting them than they think is normal, they must be shadowbanned. Obviously, if they were actually shadowbanned, nobody would be retweeting them.

That's not a good definition. If I have 0 followers I have very limited reach. You need a consistent definition. No one thinks downweighting content is shadowbanning either (unless that weight is 0, but then we're back to the normal definition).