Support, a euphemism for censorship

2021 04 11: to show  screen shot of FB spam notification
2021 04 12: to describe the next stage of FB censorship

Support, a euphemism for censorship — A “support message” is not a support message when FB sends it to its clients. That is when the  support message is a notification that a comment a FB client had wanted to post in a FB discussion thread will not be displayed by FB.

The other day I wanted to post a comment but found that it never made its appearance in the FB discussion thread it had been intended for. Today I received a Facebook “support message” that solved the mystery:

When a FB Support Message is a notification of censorship

It does not matter how intensely one tries to understand why that comment deserves to be censored, it is impossible to discern the justification for censoring it.

Perhaps the graph that was appended to the comment is the problem.  Here it is:

Interest over time in MGTOW vs feminism
(Click on the image to get to the source of the graph. That will enable 
you to make comparisons to other terms, such as Trump or COVID.)

It is hard to see what, if anything, in that graph deserves to be censored.

Well, just now I received another notification from Facebook. This time they called the comment that they for unknown reasons don’t like, “Spam”.

FB "spam" notification

No explanation was offered why they consider the comment to be spam. Who does the comment spam? Facebook doesn’t say. I insist that, going by hard and cold logic, no spam is involved and that the graph I had appended provides a perspective of the impact of the influence of MGTOW that no one other than I ever presented to anyone, and, as I recall, I did it no more than once or twice before over a good number of years.

The odd thing about Facebook’s objection, namely that they “have these standards to prevent things like false advertising, fraud and security breaches,” is that my comment does not falsely advertise anything, commits no fraud and breaches no one’s security. My comment and its appended graph does nothing more than present the truth. What possible harm could that truth represent? Why does Facebook try so hard to censure that truth? Facebook needs to examine its algorithms.

Facebook wants to rule the world through algorithms, but algorithms, as imposed by Facebook, are a very poor substitute for intelligent exchange of intelligence. It should not surprise anyone that Facebook’s censoring of my “objectionable” comment occurred for no other reason than that the comment mentioned nothing more objectionable than the word “Trump”, which gave Facebook’s censorship algorithms something to latch on to.

Facebook’s censorship affects how billions of human communicate with one-another, but it will be a long time and perhaps take forever before Facebook’s collective intelligence equals that of all of human intelligence.

Update 2021 04 12

Yesterday a link to this blog article was provided at the FB discussion thread at which FB had prevented me from posting my original comment. This morning it was found that FB had deleted the comment containing that link. 

Regardless of how one looks at all of what FB did and does to censor my original comment and the reactions to it on that discussion thread, it is evidence of a deep determination by FB to micro-manage its efforts to censor the communications of billions of people.

Certainly, Facebook’s algorithms serve that purpose very effectively, but that still does not provide them with any intelligence. The principle of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) applies, to the detriment of humanity.

See also:

(Visited 138 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Censorship, Civil Rights, Feminism, Men's Issues. Bookmark the permalink.