I've never seen a platform provide an explanation like the one you give here.
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/8k5qh3/if_y...
It has a fairly rich history, and evolution, as well as counter-measures, and counter-counter-measures and counter-counter-counter-measures.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/reveddit/comments/sxpk15/fyi_my_tho...
[2] https://cantsayanything.win/2022-10-transparent-moderation/
Yes, other techniques exist. Sometimes people, being imprecise, ignorant and/or lazy, call those techniques "shadow banning", but that isn't what they are.
What umbrella term would you use for moderator actions that are kept secret from the author of the content? "Moderation" on its own can be secret or transparent, so by itself isn't an apt description.
People are quick to jump to the "It's their website, they don't have to do anything yada yada" but there is an implied social contract between the users and the owners that for whatever tier of service (free, paid, ad-supported, whatever) you are using you will receive an equal amount and quality of service as every other user on the platform.
I'm not against moderation, I'm against secret moderation that wastes the time of other people's lives. Just be forthright and tell people they are muted but can still participate.
It was built to deal with jerks who, when moderated, would sign up under a new account, or would repost the same content over and over again, or who would invade discussions, distract them with vitriol or out of context nonsense – even if each post as original.
The whole point of the concept was that the jerks would FEEL like they were contributing to the discussion, but maybe being ignored, while maintain a static history or login that made it easier to moderate them.