Read the column banned by Facebook

Facebook can't decide if I'm a spammer, a lonely dude in need of more social interaction, or a malicious writer of abusive content.

I’m not much for social media.

I follow mostly journalists on Twitter and a few political actors whose substance to drivel ratio is substantially higher than most. The only things I ever tweet are links to my columns.

When I worked for the Arizona Republic, it wanted me on Facebook. So, I opened an account. I neither rendered nor accepted friend requests. Again, the only things I ever posted were links to my columns. There were nearly a thousand people following me somehow on Facebook, so it was a way in which some people were interacting with my writing.

That’s it. I’m not on Instagram, TikTok, or any other social media platform. It’s part of a lifetime pattern of not being engaged in popular culture. If I’m aware of it, or participating in it, it’s not hip, cool, bad, rad or whatever the current terminology might be.

For a considerable stretch of time, there was no problem with posting links to my columns on Facebook. Then, several months ago, Facebook decided I was spam and began blocking my content. The notification that I was considered spam included a box to click if you disagreed with the assessment, which I did twice. There was nothing in the notification providing space to explain why you disagreed and no one from Facebook ever followed up.

There was an amusing sidebar. At the same time my columns were being blocked, Facebook was sending me serial invitations to join some social group or other on the site. So, while one part of Facebook had concluded I was a notorious spammer to be banned from the platform, another part felt I was just some lonely dude in need of more social interaction on it. 

I responded to one of the solicitations pointing out the contradiction. Again, crickets in response.

There things have remained until recently, when Facebook apparently has decided to escalate the calumny. A few readers wanted to share my last column on Facebook and, unsurprisingly, reported being blocked. One said he received the following notice as an explanation: “Your message couldn’t be sent because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive.”

So, I am not a mere spammer. I am a writer of abusive content.

If that is indeed what Facebook is now saying – and there is no reason to doubt it because the readers of this Substack are noteworthy for their honesty and sterling character – it is curious in several respects. And undoubtedly a lie.

Note that Facebook doesn’t own up to the judgment that my content is abusive. It’s not them saying it. Some “other people” on Facebook are supposedly saying it. 

The Facebook notice purports to be about the particular column a reader sought to share. It is highly unlikely that “other people” on Facebook complained that the content of this particular column was abusive since it was never shared on Facebook, the company having previously decided to block all my content. Since it occurred within hours of being published, for what Facebook claims to be true, some “other people” would have had to read it on Substack and immediately appealed to Facebook to ban it, and Facebook would have had to immediately consent. 

I not only doubt that anyone complained to Facebook about this particular column, I doubt that Facebook has ever received a complaint about my columns constituting abusive content, or any other complaint about my columns being shared on the platform.

I tend to write pretty dispassionately and analytically, excessively so for the taste of some partisans. Amidst the fiery cocktails of today’s political rhetoric, my columns are a glass of warm milk.

But let’s assume Facebook did receive some complaints. Before issuing a ban, shouldn’t someone at Facebook actually read the columns to make an independent judgment about the legitimacy of the complaints? Or at least quickly after issuing a ban?

I’m sure no human being at Facebook has ever actually read my columns to ascertain whether they are fit to be shared on its platform. An algorithm decided I was spam and an algorithm spit out an inaccurate notice to a reader seeking to share one. 

I confess that I’ve not done much to appeal my ban from Facebook, other than clicking the box that I disagree that my columns are spam and the email pointing out the contradiction between banning my content and soliciting me to join its social groups. And I have mixed emotions about doing so now.

After all, being banned from Facebook is a badge of honor among populist conservatives, who tend to regard me as milquetoast or worse. Probably particularly if banned for abusive content.

Perhaps Rep. Jim Jordan can use me as an example in his inquisition into the high-tech companies, including for having a bias against conservative commentary.

“Mr. Zuckerberg,” he could say, “have you or anyone at Facebook actually read any of Mr. Robb’s columns? How can you say that his content is abusive? To a true American patriot such as myself, they barely have a pulse.” 

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.