Facebook Censorship Gone Completely Off the Rails

USA – Does Facebook target certain individuals, stalk them, and comb through their post history looking for any reason, no matter how slight or how far back in the past, just to punish them for conservative views?

For your consideration; let’s take a look at what happened in one individual’s recent Facebook nightmare.

Unsubstantiated Complaints

Jerry Schrecker, a military veteran, and retired police sergeant is someone who’s very outspoken on social media. And why shouldn’t he be? He’s risked his life in the military to protect such God-given rights like the freedom of speech for all of us. Schrecker posts a lot of information on Facebook that’s factual and actually provides sources that can be validated which is unusual in itself with regard to the usual Facebook posts.

Schrecker said that he’s been threatened with Facebook posting bans several times the past year. He sent TPTN Action News his latest bout with Facebook over a post that to the average reasonable person seems to be completely innocuous and completely appropriate in any forum.

This post was made over 2 years, 10 months, and 21 days ago yet only now is it being challenged by Facebook. And challenged under community standards posting rules that have changed several times over the past 34 months. What was allowed then may not be allowed now, but should one be punished for posts allowed over 2 years ago, but not now?

Shouldn’t punishment for posts be limited to a time span only relative to the time since community standards were last changed? How is it ever appropriate to punish someone for a post in 2018 that wasn’t alleged to be a violation until 2020? That’s wrong.

Apparently, there were four instances of a complaint regarding one single graphic by another Facebook user, a Facebook moderator/employee, or selection by a Facebook machine learning algorithm, or a combination of all three. None of these methods seem to take “context” into consideration which is supposed to be a primary policy regarding the application of Facebook’s community standards according to Guy Rosen, VP of Integrity as reported on November 19, 2020.

Even Facebook’s current community standards aren’t in conflict with this post.

This is evidenced by the fact that three out of four separate complaints to Facebook over the exact same graphic posted was judged to be completely within community standards.

The reviewer that determined it to be in violation clearly isn’t performing their job in accordance with policy either by design or due to incompetence. Three to one, it’s not hard to understand.

The post itself clearly is a warning against adopting communist ways and policies advocated by Adolph Hitler. The context is important. This post was in no way showing support for “hate” or “violence” or any group of people who’re oriented towards violence. The post was warning that the consumer should be wary of our current mainstream news media using our children against us as a way to subvert and infiltrate America and Americans and promote communism, socialism, or Marxism which are destructive ideologies.

It’s a valid national concern that should be debated in social media.

Sir Winston Churchill slightly changed an applicable quote in this issue when he said (paraphrased), “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana, who made the original quote in 1905 said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Complaint #1 Posted March 25, 2018	Complaint #2 Posted March 25, 2018	Complaint #3 Posted June 20, 2018	Complaint #4 Posted June 20, 2018
	Click to	enlarge

The punitive actions that were leveled against Schrecker by some Facebook reviewer with an obvious agenda of their own were excessively harsh. Thankfully Schrecker was able to disagree with the action and appeal it thus having the restrictions removed. After all, Schrecker hadn’t done anything wrong.

But this doesn’t do anything for the continual abuse towards Schrecker and other conservatives like him on the Facebook platform. It seems that Facebook users, or even Facebook employees, with personal agendas can still cause grief for the innocent. Facebook doesn’t seem to be doing anything about the real bullying that’s occurring on their social media platform. And that’s the bullying by Facebook users, employees, or some machine-learning algorithm that are allowed to initiate instant punitive actions without sufficient oversight. Logic and common sense dictate that the “review” of these complaints should come before the punitive action rather than after the damages are already done.

It seems that there are a few liberals out there who seem to think that they have been deputized by Facebook as some kind of thought police with the right to go to everyone’s Facebook walls and search out what they consider to be wrong-think then to tattle-tale to Facebook about it.

In Schrecker’s latest brush with Facebook’s reviewers, it seems that some think that all things Nazi, regardless of context, is forbidden on Facebook. That’s not the case at all. Even Facebook acknowledges that context matters.

Schrecker remarked,

It seems to me that there are Facebook users out there who have weaponized Facebook’s community standards and are using them to shut down conservative viewpoints with a complete disregard for context. I also think that there’s some Facebook employee stalking my Facebook wall and making a hobby out of trying to get me banned from posting ever. I make it a point to disagree with every decision to remove one of my posts or to ban me over a post I’ve made because I’ve found that the decision is usually overturned just as it was in this case. I wish Facebook would identify this Facebook user or employee who keeps trying to troll me and block them from my Facebook wall seeing as how I have no way of finding out who it is so I can block them myself. The fact that I mostly just post on my Facebook wall and rarely post on others’ Facebook walls, other than Fayetteville Observer’s public page, makes this even more creepy that they keep trying, and failing, to stop me posting. You literally have to come to my Facebook wall intentionally to see any of these posts I make. Seeing that there are currently 10,211 +/- people who who chose to follow my posts makes me think that they enjoy what I post. They come to me, I don’t go and pester them. That should be taken into account when Facebook gets a complaint. Did the person complaining intentionally go looking for trouble? Personally, I’ve blocked a couple of hundred who clearly came to my Facebook wall just to start trouble. Usually they tried to start arguments just so they could complain against another Facebooker, or me, hoping to get another Facebooker, or me, banned. I don’t tattle-tale to Facebook about them. I just block them and forget about them.

Other Complaints Made Regarding Schrecker’s Posts

We’re not certain just how an opinion based on a reported fact is a violation of community standards.	We’re not certain just how reporting Harris’ campaign sponsors is a “bullying or harassment” violation. Who cares if Nike supports her?¯\_(ツ)_/¯	We’re not sure how a “March for Trump” poster supports violence.
We’re not sure how learning warnings from history is supporting a violent organization or how this is worth a 30-day posting ban. Facebook’s Oversight Board disagrees with Facebook over this graphic.	We’re not sure how “vigorous debate” is a violation of Facebook’s community standards.	We’re not sure how FACTUAL reporting is in violation of Facebook’s community standards.
Yet again “context” is ignored.	Apparently, ANYTHING that’s in the least derogative about Ilhan Omar is an automatic 30-day posting ban. Even if it’s a post from a mainstream media source.	Proof that people will report anything the least little bit funny as “bullying”.
Any news about COVID 19 that doesn’t follow the agenda is complained about.	We’re not sure what offended someone about a man riding a motorbike carrying bananas.	Again, anything to do with the KKK is taken out of context and reported.
One icon is allowed to be posted but this will get you a 30-day posting ban.	Again, anything to do with the KKK is taken out of context and reported. Especially if it relates to abortion.

Frankly, none of these posts seem to warrant any kind of complaint. None of them look like they violate any rules of morality, bullying, or appear in any way to support violence or any violent organization. In fact, they seem to be opposed to violence. They seem to be opposed to racism in all forms, not just against blacks. They seem to be anti-communism, anti-socialism, and pro-American, as an American should be. None of these posts appear to be something a person wouldn’t want their own mother to see them posting. And as Schrecker said, many were found to be in compliance with Facebook’s community standards and Schrecker would have suffered ridiculous posting ban punishments had he not disagreed with Facebook’s punitive actions.

These complaints do appear to support Schrecker’s contention that there is someone among Facebook’s employees who’s been harassing Schrecker and most likely other conservatives like Schrecker. It also seems as if they are counting the posts that were complained about but determined to be acceptable in the total count against the Facebook user.

This is dangerous for Facebook as it definitely opens up avenues of litigation against Facebook over unfair arbitrary and capricious practices by their employees. All the necessary elements to the crime of NC Gen Stat § 14-196.3 14-196.3. Cyberstalking (See below) seems to have been met with regard to the activities against Schrecker. And this crime can readily be charged in North Carolina according to the statute which states;

Any offense under this section committed by the use of electronic mail or electronic communication may be deemed to have been committed where the electronic mail or electronic communication was originally received in this State, or first viewed by any person in this State.

Even more disturbing is the fact that Facebook’s Oversight Board is returning decisions that overturn reviewers’ decisions for which many Facebook users have already suffered 30- 60- and even 90-day posting ban punishments as well as other types of punitive actions.

Solutions

TPTN did an article about the nationalization of social media to reinstitute the “freedom of speech” which is a cornerstone of Americanism and we still believe that this will end up being the only way to stop all this liberal politically correct censorship nonsense.

This latest occurrence does suggest that it’s very possible to create a method by which all posting complaint violations that are disagreed with are passed through five separate reviewers for a decision who are not allowed to collaborate or see the other decisions rendered. If 2/3rd of the independent decisions (4 or more) determine that the post violated the same community standard then the post is removed, otherwise, the post, and the poster, are left alone. And of course, the reverse would hold true too.

Even better would be to apply this methodology to any generated complaints by a Facebook user, employee, or machine learning algorithm before any punitive action is taken.

This method would eliminate a single Facebook employee with a personal agenda from having entirely too much power and from being able to fulfill it. It would also allow for the identification of such “arbitrary and capricious” individuals that are causing harm to Facebook by not correctly following established policy thus causing customer dissatisfaction and litigious anger.

Added to this process would be the removal from consideration of any posts or comments posted before the last Community Standards update/revision, which in this case appears to be before November 2020.

It’s simple;

IF post/comment date <= 11/01/2020 THEN “ignore”

This would reduce the load on the reviewers and put a stop to trolls who entertain themselves with stalking people’s Facebook past just to cause trouble and extra work for Facebook. 

Lastly, put a stop to people who just go looking for trouble. If a Facebook user complains about a post or comment that they saw on another Facebook user’s wall they intentionally navigated to, then they should be confined to doing nothing more than being reminded that they can block that user or even simpler, not go to that Facebook wall. Now if someone posts something on another user’s Facebook wall that’s actually inappropriate, in accordance with the context it was used in, then, of course, Facebook should take the complaint. 

Facebook has a great way to stop being offended. Every time you see a post that offends you, block that poster so you won’t see any of their posts anymore.

Now, if you find that you don’t see anyone’s comments or posts anymore after a while because you’ve blocked everyone out of your life then maybe you’ll realize that you shouldn’t be such a liberal snowflake with character afflictions called Hypersensitive Personality Disorder (Avoidant Personality Disorder) and Narcissistic Liberal Disorder. You should then really seek treatment in that case. 

Chapter 14 – Criminal Law.
Article 26 – Offenses against Public Morality and Decency.
§ 14-196.3 – 3. Cyberstalking.
Universal Citation: NC Gen Stat § 14-196.3 (2014)
14-196.3. Cyberstalking.

(a) The following definitions apply in this section:

(1) Electronic communication. – Any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature, transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, computer, electromagnetic, photoelectric, or photo-optical system.

(2) Electronic mail. – The transmission of information or communication by the use of the Internet, a computer, a facsimile machine, a pager, a cellular telephone, a video recorder, or other electronic means sent to a person identified by a unique address or address number and received by that person.

(b) It is unlawful for a person to:

(1) Use in electronic mail or electronic communication any words or language threatening to inflict bodily harm to any person or to that person’s child, sibling, spouse, or dependent, or physical injury to the property of any person, or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value from any person.

(2) Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing, or embarrassing any person.

(3) Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another and to knowingly make any false statement concerning death, injury, illness, disfigurement, indecent conduct, or criminal conduct of the person electronically mailed or of any member of the person’s family or household with the intent to abuse, annoy, threaten, terrify, harass, or embarrass.

(4) Knowingly permit an electronic communication device under the person’s control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section.

(c) Any offense under this section committed by the use of electronic mail or electronic communication may be deemed to have been committed where the electronic mail or electronic communication was originally sent, originally received in this State, or first viewed by any person in this State.

(d) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

(e) This section does not apply to any peaceable, nonviolent, or nonthreatening activity intended to express political views or to provide lawful information to others. This section shall not be construed to impair any constitutionally protected activity, including speech, protest, or assembly. (2000-125, s. 1; 2000-140, s. 91.)