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

Popular posts from this blog

The Mainstream Media Continues to Disappoint

  Since I began this blog in 2020, one of my obsessions has been the culpability of the press in our current political predicament. Given the stakes we face this year, I feel we all need to be reminded that these mainstream news organizations are necessary, but not sufficient. Accordingly, I am revisiting this piece, which I wrote last May, because it’s particularly illustrative of the problem, especially in its depiction of The Washington Post’s shameful spinning of the final Durham Report.   The awkward term "both-siderism" has, at long last, stepped into the limelight, thanks to the graceful gravitas of CNN icon Christiane Amanpour (full disclosure: our dog used to play with her dog). In one brilliant commencement address , to the Columbia School of Journalism, she dope-slapped her own profession and, indeed, her own boss, both of whom richly deserved it. That takes guts, not to mention a reputation for integrity. Both of which she has in abundance.

Is Nikki Haley Working on a Take-Down of Trump?

  Every now and then I like to engage in a bit of speculation. Not prediction, mind you, but something hopefully less presumptuous. In this case, I’ve been musing about Nikki Haley’s path forward, if she has one. Not whether she’ll win the nomination, which is unlikely. I’m more interested in her potential as an irritant, as a person ideally positioned to tamper with Trump’s fragile psyche. She now has the unmistakable opportunity to attack Trump from inside the Fox media bubble, something few have been able to do. Haley just might be the focus of a novel strategy that does two things at once: It holds the door open for the slim chance she has of winning the nomination this summer, while at the same time, it lays the groundwork for a 2028 run at the presidency. Given the debased state of today’s Republican party, this is surely as good a strategy as any, though it risks doing more for Joe Biden than for her. More on this later. For now, let’s presume that ther

What Could Be Worse than the Dobbs Decision?

  I’ve tried to be a bit more optimistic in my posts of late. I’ve focused on the evidence — of which there’s plenty — that maybe Trump and the Republican party are driving themselves, as opposed to us, off a cliff. The politics of preserving democracy have indeed been somewhat encouraging, especially when one considers the virtually unbeaten record of Democrats in every election since the fall of Roe v. Wade . I’d like nothing more than to give up the gloom-and-doom thing on a permanent basis. But not today. Today, once again, I have to bum us all out. I have to tell you about one of those boring and esoteric legal issues that tend to slip right by us, but which, in this case, carries a level of threat arguably more alarming even than the tanking of Roe . Once again, the Supreme Court is up to no good, and it has nothing to do with the criminality of Donald Trump. One of the decisions they’re cooking up for this June could dwarf the Dobbs decision, both in