Facebook Takes Pride in Idiotic Censorship
This was a response to a post about terminologies we can use to flag far-right/fascist propaganda. I disagreed with “bankers” and “Rothschilds” and agreed with “globalists” and ” Holohoax.” Facebook’s stupid bots must have taken “Holohoax” out of context thinking that I endorsed the term. This is the kind of stupidity that results from having bots identify keywords out of context. Any human can see that I was not defending use of the term, only agreeing that it was a fascist dog whistle while disagreeing with two other terms. I seriously doubt the original poster was trying to entrap people into getting 30-day suspensions for listing dog whistle terms.
Facebook doubled -down on their idiocy. 100% of people who agree with them are incompetent and deserve to be homeless.
I wanted to screenshot Macdonald Stainsby’s original post to show that the objectionable terms were in it and to prive the context in which they were being discovered, but I couldn’t find it, suggesting that if “Holohoax” is used without scare quotes, unnecessary in a list format, triggers an automatic suspension. This is so stupid. I’d rather that they didn’t suspend people who use this term in earnest so that we know that they are racist and have zero credibility. I don’t necessarily expect Facebook to change their policy on those who use the word on earnest, but I do think it is extremely unreasonable to suspend people for discussing its use as a term by those on the political right.
Facebook’s policy seems to be, “If I lie about someone enough times, it should be enough to get them convicted, especially if I can prove that an offensive word appeared in one of their posts.” I’m lucky the suspension isn’t permanent. It’s never the posts that I think risk a suspension that do it. It’s always something posted innocuously and in good faith.
Update: MacDonald Stainsby was shocked by my suspension but disagrees with me about “Rothschilds.” They are mentioned several times in the correspondence between Frederick Engels and Paul and Laura Lafargue, and they have come up in many an Occupy meeting, especially by Tony Buontempo, who is Jewish in his mother’s side, where it counts. I was wrong about him not using quotation marks, but even in context this has to be a punishment for not using them because in the context I used the words, they might as well have been.
Scott Andrew Hutchins 
maybe post less on Facebook. Less post = less likely to be banned. See you in 30 days meth mouth
The appeal has been submitted. No rational person could disagree with my argument.
This was a discussion of dog whistle terminology. All offensive words were used in the original post.Edit
I saw this post in my feed: Macdonald Stainsby March 15 at 2:37 PM · This is an “only some can see it” post. There are many dog-whistle terms used in far-right stuff online; these dog whistle terms help a reader distinguish between Fascist and non-Fascist sources. Some of those terms include “globalists” “bankers” “Rothschilds” more obvious ones include “Holohoax” and similar. What other “this is written by a fascist” words or phrases should be listed? My response: “People on the left definitely talk about bankers and Rothchilds, not so much about Holohoax or globalists.” This is an open-and-shut case of your bots not being able to understand context. This is a perfectly reasonable respnse to the original post. It seems to me that the only reason I am being punished is failure to put scare quotes around the word “Holohoax,” which really isn’t necessary in the context. This is the latest example of your bots suspending me for no reason unless your ulterior motive is to censor leftist and pro-Palestinian voices. It is clear to any reaosnbale person that I was not defending the use of the term “Holohoax.” This is not the first time you have used selective enforcement against me, betraying the lie of our claim, “We use the same rules around the world for everyone. Our technology and teams work in many languages to make sure our rules are applied consistently.” There is a litany of such stupidities and selectvice enforcement on your end presented on my blog, scottandrewhutchins.wordpress.com, but this is probably the most egregious failure on your part. If you seriously believe that my comment constitutes hate speech, I think I’m owed a written explanation why. “You used the word ‘Holohoax'” is not an explanation because it appeared in the oiriginal post, which has been up for two weeks without incident. There is no way that a rational person could conclude that I used the term in an earnest sense of endorsement.EditWhich topics best describe your appeal?
Manipulated media, Misinformation and PoliticsEditWhich countries does your appeal relate to?
United StatesEditWhich languages are used in the content?
EnglishEditWhat can be shared about you with the public?
Do you give permission for the Board to share details that could easily identify you in its explanation?
YesEdit
Do you give permission for the Board to share data with special protections about you in its explanation?
YesEdit
appeal denied? Rofl see you in 30 days
The appeal is done by the same bots that do the initial suspension. The fact that I’ve gotten them to undo their decision a couple of times is astounding. Only if it goes before the board does a human even look at it, and none of my complaints have ever been selected.
Facebook doubled -down on their idiocy. 100% of people who agree with them are incompetent and deserve to be homeless.