Nope. Still wrong. I understand there is some way it feels like that from your perspective but DDG and Bing don't own your feed. So they are hiding nothing from you. They are 100% ~up-front~ (edit) consistent about not choosing to show your site (ban it) and the fact that they don't control your feed doesn't make it any more accurate to apply the word "shadow" to their ban.
I have become what I hate most. Someone who didn't read the article. I've heard too many instances of the term being misapplied and jumped to a conclusion based on the discussion.
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.
