[Pause for Laughter] [And Possible Eye-Rolling]

Meta announced today that they're ditching independent fact-checkers for a more "community-oriented" moderation system much like X, formerly Twitter, adopted a few years ago.

In reading CNN's take on the announcements (and man alive do you have to swim through a lot of politic slop to get to the meat of what Meta is doing) this gem arrived:

Meta also plans to adjust its automated systems that scan for policy violations, which it says have resulted in “too much content being censored that shouldn’t have been.” The systems will now be focused on checking only for illegal and “high-severity” violations such as terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud and scams. Other concerns will have to be reported by users before the company evaluates them.

I have to laugh at this, because the number of outright scams I've encountered -- and reported -- on Facebook is legion, and I can't recall any of the posts being removed. The best I've been able to do is comment on the posts that they're a scam, which leads the post to getting more engagement points and the original poster burying or deleting my comments -- or reporting me for spamming them.

The only rule that makes sense is that mostly what I've reported are paid or sponsored posts, and as I am one of the unwashed idiots on Facebook freeloading, their moderators and bots go where the money is.

Whether or not they follow up with not censoring content "that shouldn't have been [censored]" remains to be seen. I've had some that fell into that category.

Oh, for the Love of Corn, Facebook.

It started innocently enough, with an admonition that I get a life when I noted the only thing I did for fun yesterday was clean the gutter and sidewalk in front of the house.

But then, as things do occasionally on Facebook, it took a left turn.

It's best to illustrate with pictures.

Here's the reason for Dennis' test:

I don't know what they objected to. The words? My cropping? The red circle I drew around the unrepaired damage to Homer's foundation?

I'm at a loss to explain it.

Dennis sums up the situation perfectly, hence the title of this post:

I'm sure they've got artificial intelligence involved in this -- their "naughty boy" message was instantaneous with me clicking post. But there is no explanation of how this goes against community standards. Or what those standards are. Or how those standards can allow scam crypto ads and fake links that lead one to scam computer repair links to remain. Oh, because they're getting *paid* for those . . . 

Update: I forgot to share the entire jpg I was sharing along with my pearl-clutching comment, in case that it what offended:

Hey Facebook, Do Better

This is the result of one of my many reports to Facebook of ads that send clickers to computer repair scam pages.

Facebook does not have its users best interests in mind; it is interested only in advertising revenue.

Facebook gave me the option to request another review. Clicking on that option brings up this pop-up, which just keeps looping me back to the same pop-up. So I clicked on "request review" a dozen or so times.

I'll probably be banned for abusing their ad reporting system.

The ads I've reported all took me to a website home to a software repair scam similar to the one Pleasant Green describes in this video.

. . . A Lorry-Load of *Interesting* Cheeses . . .

Rest assured, folks, Facebook is out there protecting you. Protecting you from the likes of. . . 

Rowley Birkin.

I imagine it's the title of this clip that caught it in Facebook's humorless web:

Now, Facebook has yet to follow up with me for reporting two individuals posting pornographic material and tagging me in their posts because I commented on an automotive-related page and they figure, car guy=sexual deviant. I don't know if they're protecting me from that.

But they are protecting you, gentle reader, from the horrors of humor. Just so you know.

Again, note the complete lack of a clear explanation as to what exactly was wrong here. You'd think by the message there that they objected to the lorry-load of interesting cheeses. No mention of the video at all. I only guessed when I went back to YouTube and saw the title of the clip:

Their reluctance to repeat the (shh!) *naughty words* does them and their users a disservice. Had this happened a week, a month hence, I might have lost all context and had no idea what they were talking about, as seen here.

Facebook, do better.

They Made it for Him Special

Saw this on Facebook just now and it made me think of a funny scene from Johnny Dangerously.

I'm not posting this on Facebook, obviously, because I don't want a 30-day bannination just for trying to be funny. so I'll put it here where no one will ever see it.

He, of course, did fulfill a lot of peoples' expectations: He became a real scumbag.

Probationary Postman Davidson, Back to the Facebook Hoosegow. Maybe.

A friend posted this to Facebook.

Which meant, of course, I quoted Milton Waddams thus:

Probation was almost over, too . . . 

"One Shed" Jacksoned

Let the truth be known I've been banned from Facebook for 24 hours for suggesting I should burn my own shed down rather than clean it.

When will Facebook's bots learn to read context? And when will Facebook ever say, "Oh, our bad," if in their "review" they find their bot was in error? This won't happen because no one is reviewing what the bots are doing. Not a single person. Never seen it before, so when they say my opinion on the matter will make a difference to their bots, I have to laugh and call them liars. Because that's what they are.

I'm so grateful Facebook is protecting the world from minor jokes as content inciting violence while at the same time they're being sued for not protecting actual people from actual violence that led to a lot of people being dead.

My shed, a plastic hovel filled mostly with bicycles no one is using, has more influence on Facebook than I do.

Enema Addendum

So explain me this.

Yesterday, put into Facebook jail for three days for "inciting violence."

Not that I want my friends to get into trouble, but somehow their comments stand. I guess "I wanted to run them over" is more promotional of violence than machine guns or cattle prods. Is there a difference between promoting violence and engineering potential violence?

I don't understand it, Facebook. Not that I want to promote violence, or push boundaries. But there's absolutely no transparency here. Why is what I said pushing violence, but these comments are not? AGAIN, DON'T WANT TO RAT THESE GUYS OUT. Just trying to understand.

This is why people hate your tiny guts.

Facebook Needs an Enema

This time because I posted a comment wherein I expressed the desire to run over two dudebros who stopped in front of an open parking spot where I had hoped to park because they wanted me to pass because they were walking in the middle of the parking lot aisle.

A friend's comment on hood-mounted machine guns still stands, however.

My sinful thought:

I am PROMOTING VIOLENCE, they say.

Or maybe restraint, you know, because while I said I wanted to run them over, I didn't actually do it. And no reasonable person would look at this and think I advocate running over Walmart parking lot morons. At least not yet.

And of course Facebook's filters are known to be humorless.

L.H. Puttgrass and Facebook Jail

 

Facebook jail again.

This time for quoting Berkeley Breathed's L.H. Puttgrass on a random thread about eliminating the Electoral College.

I'd blame an ahumorous censor, but I'm about 99.9% certain this all comes down to an algorithm. I guess they have to err on the side of caution when anyone uses the word SHOOT.

But still, please.

Also, at first, this was a "warning." When I disagreed with their algorithm/ahumorous android's decision, it became a 24-hour bannination.

Recording it here because if I discuss it on Facebook tomorrow after the bannination is lifted, I'll get it all over again.

All I wanted was to be a pundit for the people.

Avert Your Eyes, Pearl-Clutchers!

In case I suddenly fall silent on Facebook for the next 30 days, let it be known that sharing an image featuring [REDACTED name of infamous international terrorist] in the company of [REDACTED name of anal yet beloved pigeon-fancier and bottle cap collector] goes against Facebook's community standard of EVER posting a joke image on its service.

In their cautionary note to me, they did not indicate which person in the image violated their community standards, so I have to assume it was [REDACTED name of infamous international terrorist], although in context it can be assumed the other personage represented is also pretty damned shifty.

They also assured me, in banning me from advertising or going live on Facebook for the next 30 days that "mistakes are made," so they stopped short of a full 30-day disadulation. By this I assume their magnanimity refers to me making mistakes in posting the naughty image, not them in getting salty over a joke.

Rest assured the AI bots in the employ of Mark Zuckerberg are always vigilant in their attempts to protect Facebook's users from humor.

The offending photo, explained. It's also displayed at the bottom of this post.

Facebook Jail, Folks.

If you're interested:

I used the term "white trash." That's the comment they're worried about.

And the post they're worried about? I gave a screenshot of Facebook's message on my forbidden word and said, "Facebook has trouble with [thoughtcrime deleted]. Who knew?"

Just so you know, Facebook jail feels like this:

Also, it's clear Facebook can't count. My number of sins? Three. The number they tell me about? Two.

Slight ironic update: I'm back on Facebook, such as it is.

They wouldn't let me do anything there for 24 hours but the following:

1. Accidentally "like" an ad.

2. Show me targeted advertising for the company handling my 401k after I visited their website.

Buncha weenies.