How did Facebook get the decision wrong?
The post responded to was one of those silly questions that tells you that you have only the object to your right to protect yourself from some imaginary monster. My response was that I had a jar of salsa con queso and a TV remote and I facetiously opined that I would "kill the bastard" (IE the imaginary creature supposedly threatening my life). Do you SERIOUSLY THINK that I was threatening to actually murder someone or to incite OTHER people to murder someone with a freaking JAR OF SALSA CON QUESO AND A TV REMOTE? Also--recently, I reported someone for making threats of violence, murder and rape against four democratic women who are nicknamed "the squad." THAT, a threat against ACTUAL, LIVING WOMEN WHO REALLY EXIST, was considered "not against our community standards." Even though this poster had made many, many threats of this nature against ACTUAL, LIVING PEOPLE. What the hell is wrong with your review system? It obviously is DEEPLY FLAWED. THIS is not the first time this has happened to me either. Shame on you. Either enforce your policies equally or STOP HAVING THEM.
What was your reason for posting it? Do you think Facebook misunderstood your reason?
I posted it because it was a silly game meant to amuse people with the various items that you would have to use to protect yourself in the event of an attack by a monster. The post was meant to evoke a mental image of some silly person attacking a homicidal creature from the dark side with a jar of cheese dip and a remote control. OBVIOUSLY the FACEBOOK Patrol Bot is mentally handicapped if it sees this as a REAL threat or incitement to violence. Come on!
Does this content involve important social issues?
Not unless the FaceBook Patrol Bot has started a protest titled "Imaginary Homocidal Monsters' Lives Matter. You need to look at posts IN CONTEXT or not look at them at all.
Summarize in 5-10 words, the most important details of your case.
Threatening imaginary monsters with a jar of dip is not real violence.
Is there anything else you think we need to know?
You need to have actual humans read these things IN CONTEXT before restricting people for a month. It makes you look like idiots.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-11 02:20 am (UTC)But I also think someone who has it in for you reported you. Otherwise everyone on this thread would have gotten banned for 30 days and that should have set off some sort of human intervention alert that the bot needs some supervision.
If you were the ONLY one to get a 30 day suspension, then someone is targeting you.
Look close to home.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-11 09:17 am (UTC)