SINNER, Part 2

First, I'm not letting this bug me.

But from a communication and technical writing perspective, it's interesting.

They won't show me the content they consider to be spam. Yet they offer me opportunity (rare for Facebook) to defend it.

There are a few things wrong with this approach:

1. I don't know whether they object to a comment on someone else's post, a comment I made on a post of my own, or an entire post. I can't see anything missing. I didn't go far back in my own stuff because about 99% of my content is throwaway, but still.

2. They won't show me the content, but they want me to defend it. They want to know if they misunderstood something, or if it was a joke, or whatever. They're making me guess at the content, so the best I can do is guess at the reasons why I think their removal of it is in error.

3.  They don't really give a timeline on how long their review will take, who's doing the review, etc.

I know they're a private company and can do whatever they want. Still, it's an odd situation for a company that makes money off me and other users in ways that'd make my head spin if I knew.

Which makes me wonder if some of the snark I posted on a paid customer's (or customers') posts is the root of it all. That's the only thing that comes to mind. I was potentially hurting someone's cash flow, and that is worse than spamming.I do recall posting links to this video on sponsored ads promoting the same grift under a different name. That could be it.