My Second (possibly third) Facebook Ban!

Back from a 24-hour Facebook ban i.e. prison sentence. According to Facebook, “This is because you previously posted something that didn’t follow our Community Standards.” I’ve been all over their Community Standards. They’re referring to 12. Hate Speech, under III. Objectionable Content. They’re also flat-out WRONG, mainly because either their AI or their operatives don’t understand American English.

Apparently, FB’s AI cannot either tell the difference between police actions and military actions, or between STANOPS (standard military operations and procedures) and hate speech. I mentioned something the military does all the time,and WHAM! They claimed the post went against their policies on hate speech. What else are you going to call others who’re just itching to sink a U.S. Naval vessel and murder a bunch of sailors who’re engaged in peacekeeping missions? Peonies? Chrysanthemums? Daisies? The words I chose were precisely and aptly accurate.

Let’s examine a bit of history…

On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was bombed in a suicide attack by the terrorist group al Qaeda, while she was being refueled in Yemen’s Aden harbor. Seventeen U.S. Navy sailors were killed and thirty-nine were injured.

By USN – [1], Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3180769

THAT’S A HATE CRIME.

The deadliest attack against the Navy prior to that was against the USS Stark on May 17, 1987 by Iraqis.

Are you beginning to see the pattern? I’ll spell it out for you:

I S L A M

That’s not “hate speech.” That’s a FACT. The Iraqis were Muslim. The 9/11 attackers were Muslim. Cole’s bombers were Muslim. This isn’t a small number, either. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, there have been several hundred Islamist terror attacks against the U.S. and our allies all over the world with many THOUSANDS of lives lost. It’s bad enough that List of Islamist terrorist attacks has its own Wikipedia entry.

Both U.S. and allied forces absolutely MUST keep watch against enemy aggression at all times because the enemy — Muslim extremists of Islam — have sworn time and time again to absolutely destroy the U.S. and her allies.

Now THAT’S hate speech.

Let’s examine my offending post:

I noted the gunboats getting WAY too close to our naval vessels were Iranian.

That’s a fact, not hate speech.

I noted the proper military response to one of them getting too close is to sink that one and all the rest.

That is simply good military strategy, right out of Sun Tzu. If you don’t, the rest will load up with explosives and drive themselves straight into our Navy vessels patrolling the Gulf.

Perhaps its my use of the term “blitheringly idiotic,” but that, too, is a fact, when we’re there to keep the oil flowing and the tankers going. I find it idiotic that they would play cat and mouse with a superpower, especially one trying to keep the peace in the region.

Perhaps it’s my use of the term, “bastards.” Then again, that was a favorite term by General Patton to describe any enemy fighting a totalitarian war against free, peaceful people who just want a government of the people, by the people and for the people, as largely existed throughout Europe before Germany’s “annexation,” not to mention some 30 million other members of the military and perhaps 200 million civilians in the U.S. over the last 80 years.

They’re trying to killed us, and for no reason other than the fact they’re Muslim and we’re not. That behavior is certainly that of “an offensive or disagreeable person,” the #2 textbook definition of “bastard.”

So, that’s not it, either, unless FB’s censors haven’t a clue as to what terms are actually being used in modern English.

Perhaps it’s because I used the term, “Iranian.” Then again, the boats that keep endangering the U.S. military aren’t Russian. They’re not Panamanian, Chinese, or Australian. They’re Iranian boats driven and manned by Iranians.

So that can’t be it, either.

Perhaps it’s the way I grouped those terms together. But if so, then at what point does a string of perfectly accurate words commonly used in the English language to describe others who go around blowing up other people in boats become “hate speech?” These Iranians are a HATEFUL people, and heinously so! There was everything good, right, just, noble and true about describing them EXACTLY as they are. Slap THEM with a hate speech label, if not behavior. But don’t use that DAMNED label while censoring an accurate description.

That’s just stupid, there, Facebook. If you can’t navigate the English language, you have no business dishing out Facebook bans as a result of your partially incoherent understanding of American English.

When I disagreed with the decision, however, they had fewer reviewers available because of the pandemic, so they’re “trying hard to prioritize reviewing content with the most potential for harm.”

You think I’m kidding. Here’s that response:

Since I mentioned a military action, ventilating an enemy ship in such a way that caused it to take on water until it slid below the waves and meet the bottom, I thought for sure my post would skyrocket to the top of their que, but no…

I’m thinking if FB’s AI isn’t up to speed and they have fewer reviewers available, perhaps a better course of action might be to dial back the aggressiveness of their AI, particularly with respect to military terms.
Suggestion for Consideration: If the terms were good enough to show in Movietone News before pretty much every movie in every theater throughout World War II — including to kids of all ages — some 75 to 80 years ago, then perhaps — just perhaps — it might be okay to talk about it and/or use the same terms here on Facebook.

Bottom Line: If FB’s AI cannot accurately follow FB’s own policies with the same or better accuracy with respect to minimizing false positives as would a intelligent, rational, disinterested third party, then perhaps FB shouldn’t be using AI at all.

ETA: It looks like Facebook’s censors agreed with my rebuttal after all, as the post was both reinstated and people have responded.

Nevermind!