Skip to main content

Republican Abuse — Or Why I (Reluctantly) Joined Facebook

The other day, I signed up for Facebook. After holding out for decades, I begrudgingly succumbed. It was my only way out of Facebook Jail.

Last Friday, shortly after posting my latest, “The Oligarch Agenda,” my cousin — who has been sharing my rants with her Facebook crowd — informed me that she couldn’t share this one because somebody had reported it as “abusive.”

I suspect Republicans.

It seems I’ve been hard on the poor dears. Seems I’ve offended their delicate sensibilities.

Children in cages are, of course, fine. Sabotaging the Post Office, no problem. Voter suppression, botched pandemic, economy in freefall, negligent homicide of 160,000 Americans. What’s the problem?

But my post, of all things, has somebody all verklempt. Yes, I implied that they might be racists, misogynists, xenophobes, homophobes, and religious cranks, but why would that bother them? Isn’t that a badge of honor? Aren’t they proud of that stuff?

Try to share ‘viralranting.com’ on Facebook and you’ll be told that you can’t. The link “goes against our Community Standards.”

A careful reading of those copious and long-winded standards reveals much that Facebook is supposedly protecting us from. My post, however, did not run afoul of any of them, and is in fact quite compliant.

Yet not only is this particular post now blocked, but indeed the entire blog — all 42 posts — cannot be shared on Facebook. I’m tempted to consider it an honor, but both the marketer and the citizen in me is outraged.

If you’ve read the offending post, I invite you to read it again, checking carefully for the telltale signs of abuse.

Did I cyber-stalk a celebrity? Did I post nude pictures of ex-girlfriends? Did I bully, harass, or exploit anyone? Did I write anything that can be construed as offensive to women, people of color, immigrants, Native Americans, or the LGBTQ community? Did I disparage Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, or Zoroastrians?

I did, admittedly, abuse Republicans. Gleefully so. Guilty as charged. But I’m quite certain this is permitted under, like, the First Amendment. Remember freedom of speech? But these days, who knows? Maybe free speech is only open to Republicans. Did I miss an executive order?

So on Saturday, after resisting Facebook for as long as it’s been around, after watching friends and family move significant parts of their lives into its jurisdiction, after being long convinced that there was much about it that made me uncomfortable, I signed up.

Not because I’m feeling more sociable — my wife will confirm I’m as curmudgeonly as ever. Nor is it because I’m looking for a bigger megaphone on a platform that wantonly amplifies some of the worst people life has to offer.

I joined for one reason only: so I could appeal.

Yes, there’s an appeals process, but it’s opaque in an almost Orwellian way. It consists of one email address — appeals@facebook.com — that I got through word of mouth. It seems to be an active address, but there’s no acknowledgement that they received my email, let alone my request for reinstatement. There’s also a link to their developer site, that some people have said might work, but the success rate is unknown. I’m told persistence is required.

It turns out there’s an entire sub-culture of people whose accounts have been taken into custody by Facebook’s thought police. There is no apparent due process, and I don’t know how many were ultimately unblocked. Nor do I know how many people have lost their livelihoods because some coward with a grudge decided to put out a digital hit on them.

What’s especially galling is the anonymity of the complaint. I remember thinking I had some constitutional right to confront my accuser. But again, rights are looking less than inalienable lately.

So basically, I’ve been accused by a faceless person, tried and convicted by a faceless algorithm, and punished by a faceless corporation. All so that an empty-headed Republican can be spared the horror of my thoughts.

But maybe I’m looking at this the wrong way. Maybe I’m overlooking the fact that at least one empty-headed Republican has actually read my post. Which might mean there’s at least one opinion this person did not get from Fox News.

These days, we take our victories where we can get them.

 

P.S. For reasons unrelated to the Facebook problem, I will soon be changing the name of this blog to a new set of words — no more than three — as soon as I decide what they are. As Rachel says, watch this space.

Berkley MI

Tuesday 08/18/20

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What Sort of Pro Bono Work is Big Law Signing Up For?

  B ig Law is on the hot seat. Major firms have unexpectedly been thrust into the front lines of the war against Trump, and all their options are bad. I wrote about this two weeks ago, and since then a slew of big firms have either made a deal with the devil or joined the side of the angels. On the minus side, all but one of the top twenty firms have either taken the “deal” or stayed silent. I personally think they’re playing a bad hand badly. On the plus side — beyond those top twenty behemoths — there are hundreds of very large firms who have taken a stand, of sorts, against the junta. If you’re interested in keeping score , you can do so, but the whole thing keeps getting weirder. As we watch these “deals” being made, the one common denominator — and the most publicized aspect — is the “pro bono” work these firms are committing to. About a billion dollars’ worth of lawyering is available to be used in “conservative” causes. What does this mean? What ...
2 comments
Read more

First They Come for the Law Firms, Then They Come for the Law

  I n classic fascist fashion, the Trump-Musk junta has launched a war on independent voices. They are actively engaged in suppressing free thought, and they’re putting serious pressure on the institutions that value it. The pressure so far has fallen on the mainstream media, who have largely cowered in the face of it, and on universities, who are still trying to figure out how to deal with it. But the most pressure — and the most immediate threat to the very concept of independent thinking — is being put on the legal sector. Lawyers, law students, law professors, and judges everywhere are feeling it. Large law firms especially are alarmed, ever since Trump started issuing executive orders that threaten to sink them, whether they comply or not. For some reason, I can’t stop writing about this. In the past month, some of the biggest firms have capitulated, reaching agreements with the junta to contribute pro bono work to “conservative” causes. These agreement...
3 comments
Read more

DEI-Bashing and the Battle for the Soul of Big Law

  T here was a time, not long ago, when a major corporate law firm would look to burnish its “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” credentials in the marketplace. At which point that firm might hire a writer like, say, me. It was a given that Big Law firms needed to become more diverse, at least if they wanted to stay relevant in a work environment that was no longer male, white, straight, and old. Firms everywhere invested real money in the recruitment, training, and promotion of lawyers from widely varied backgrounds, and they paid people like me to brag about it to the world. Every firm needed a DEI page on its website. Some wanted printed brochures. Some wanted advertising. Most wanted the legal community, especially law schools, to know about their diversity efforts. Law schools were by then rating firms by their DEI “scores,” and the firms with the best scores were getting the pick of the litter from the graduating classes. What I liked about the work was...
Post a Comment
Read more