"The illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot read. It will be the person who does not know how to learn." -- Alvin Toffler
And yet another salvo has been fired in the War On Facebook.
Or, rather, the War on Freedom of Speech.
Your Overlord was banned for 30 days, again, this time for posting a photo that, according to Facebook, "violates community standards" (which are NEVER made available for review). The photo in question is visible at left.
If you enlarge it, you can see it is one of those "Be Careful What You Ask For" memes, in this case a teacher's assignment to her students to which some sarcastic parent found a gigantic loophole and leapt through it with gusto, shoving his kid ahead of him.
It appears I was snagged by a bot, which probably was "trained" to seek out swastikas and pencil moustaches. It obviously ignored the textual part and honed in on the image. That is to say, a human being didn't flag me as an evil douchebag, but a machine did. Hooray for the computer: it did what it was programmed to do.
What it ISN'T programmed to do, however, is understand CONTEXT. We'll get back to this in a moment.
So, having been informed by Facebook's Gestapo that I am "in violation" of something they never identify or define, it's time to go through the theater of the "review process". Normally, these things blow over in a few days -- a human being gets involved, understands the context in which the "violation" was made, and my 30-day vacation in the Hotel Zuckerfucker is typically reduced to three days or less.
To paraphrase Steely Dan, any major dude with half a brain should be able to figure this out.
But instead Facebook has thrown a curveball.
See, I can no longer just dispute my banning by simply clicking "I disagree"; I have been introduced, so to speak, to something called The Oversight Board, to whom I may plead my case in writing.
By snail mail.
After answering a shitload of pre-prepared questions (not available online).
And I have only a limited time to make such an appeal.
Why, if I wasn't such a brilliant individual, I might believe I'm being asked to give the equivalent of a LEGAL DEPOSITION.
This has never happened (to me) before.
Now, according to this fresh Byzantine process (see here), Facebook claims that it will "objectively" (you mean with the same objectivity with which you squashed the post and banned me?) examine "my case" (it has it's own docket number, just like court!) through the lenses of "complexity and global significance", whatever the fuck any of that means.
Before I go any further, I want to set up an example of what behavior/memes/photos, etc. Facebook finds acceptable and those which Facebook finds beyond the bounds of human decency:
I CAN post a picture of two trannies kissing one another.
I CAN'T post a picture of a kid dressed up as Hitler.
I CAN post an article in favor of abortion.
I CAN'T post a meme comparing Planned Parenthood with a Nazi Death Camp(keeping with the left-leaning Cognitive Dissonance, Planned Parenthood is where you go to get rid of an un-planned pregnancy).
I CAN post a Twitter snapshot of someone calling for the extermination of the White race.
I CAN'T post a meme extolling the virtues of Western Civilization.
I CAN post an article extolling the virtues of Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.
I CAN'T post an article from the New York Post describing Hunter Biden's criminal history.
You get the idea.
And when Facefascist isn't making those sorts of decisions on the basis of "complexity and global significance", it simply hides a post from public view by virtue of it's "Fact Checking Regime" which is three lies from the price of one, so that you get an article that has 98% accurate information in it being spiked because there's a 2% discrepancy that twisted someone's gonads.
As an example of another post I made that ran afoul of the complex global fact checkers, an article I posted several WEEKS ago was retroactively flagged as "partly false". It involved a judge in Milwaukee who was arrested on charges of downloading child pornography...in his chambers.
In addition, this judge was identified as a high-ranking member of a Drag Queen organization that offers public readings to children in libraries, and of being associated with a certain charity in the city. Since the report was wrong about the man's position within the Drag organization (as determined by "Fact Checkers" from Politico), the post was spiked as being "partly false".
That the remainder was 100% dead-on-balls ACCURATE apparently does not matter. Politico did not take issue with the idea that the judge has been accused of a crime -- oh FUCK NO! -- they're pantybunched because his associations have been mischaracterized and that made some cross-dressing, child-molesting fucktards unhappy.
Of course, this is censorship.
I could make an impassioned First Amendment argument here, but to do so is pointless: the "social" media companies don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about that, unless it works to their advantage.
I'm going to take issue with HOW they engage in censorship without calling it censorship and get away with it.
Let's first begin with the concept of context and how censor bots operate. The Overlord has 35 years of experience with Automation programming, mainframe data processing and associated fields, so I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
Context is defined as follows:
1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; the setting.
3. Texture; specifically, the entire text or connected structure of a discourse or writing.
Context depends on several factors, but the primary requirement is that there be a shared experience between a writer and an audience so that understanding becomes much easier.
Bots do cannot do this. A bot is a machine. It has no experience, and in this case, the bot in question skipped over the written part of the picture to focus specifically upon the visual (in this case, most likely the presence of a swastika, if I had to guess). The bot doesn't KNOW what a swastika is, or what it represents, it does not have any information regarding it's history, significance, historical impact, etc. The bot has just been told "this is image is offensive" and whether the image is presented in a positive or negative way does not register. It's not making "a judgement"; it's following its programming.
All of this bullshit about "deep learning" and "neural networks" and such surrounding Artificial Intelligence is complete crap. I KNOW it is complete crap because it is what I do for a living. If you needed examples of how crappy it is, remember that it was "Computer Modeling" that brought you COVID holocaust scenarios that failed to pan out and the infamous "Hockey Stick" global warming panic.
Which brings us to the programmers. Most of them suck. Hard. I know this to be a fact because I've had to hire a lot of them in recent years. Most -- especially the womyn -- can't do math. They learn next to nothing about the nature and function of the systems they're supposed to be experts at. In fact, they stink so much mathematically that the "great leaps" made in Artificial Intelligence have mostly revolved around having the system correct for programmer error, rather than simply stop processing when an error is encountered.
In effect, AI "learns" by making repeated mistakes (because of poor programming) until it happens to find the "right" solution to a given problem, overcoming bad coding by sheer speed and volume of computational possibilities. In the Old Days when the Overlord was a young buck, we had to do things CORRECTLY; the New Breed does things half-assed and depends on the computer to fix their mistakes.
Now, there's another characteristic that the New Breed of "Computer Scientists" possesses in abundance, which is a result of their upbringing, their mis-education, and their intellectual laziness, and that is they are completely and totally unaware of anything that is not spoon fed to them by what they consider "an authority". if "no one told me about that" it is because, they believe, it was unimportant; when it turns out to have been really important, their mis-education has given them a ready supply of stock defense mechanisms against feeling like an idiot, so that things get labelled "racist", "sexist", "offensive", and so forth, when they really aren't.
Or, at least wouldn't be considered such by a functioning adult.
In this particular case, someone has been told that a swastika is offensive (that it is an ancient Hindu sun symbol and present in every day life is unknown to them because, like, that's old, an' stuff, and like, you know).
This means the New Breed is incurious, they lack perspective in all things, they are absolved of thinking for themselves. After all, if it mattered "we would have learned that in school" or "someone would have told me". They are, literally, unware of anything that hasn't happened in the present.
Context, therefore, is beyond their grasp.
And as has been proven -- countless times -- programmers tend to program their biases into their work. This cannot be avoided. Ever.
So, when a bot is called upon to make a decision -- shitcan or allow this -- it has no wiggle room in the decision-making process. When the programming that constitutes that decision-making process was crafted by an under-30 with the mental reflexes of Joe Biden and store of knowledge and experience that starts at whatever happened yesterday, mistakes will be made. This bunch is living proof that the best idea they ever heard also happens to be the LAST idea they ever heard, and when it becomes necessary, they forgot they ever heard it or destroy the idea retroactively in a swarm of -ism's.
So now you know why they eat detergent and take pictures of their lunch, as if anyone gives a fuck what they're eating, or might be dazzled by the fact that someone is eating.
So, let's follow this train of runaway fucktard:
1. A company, with obvious biases because "a company" consists of individuals who cannot help but express their biases in their work, decides that it has the right and responsibility to censor a joke. It does so on an ad hoc basis, depending on whatever is good or believed to be so to its bottom line. This means it will err on the side of caution when it is unsure what the proper response is, given its biases, and slam the door on anything its biases tell it is bad. The decision is arbitrary because it is made half-emotionally and not rationally.
2. The task of deciding is left to a machine. A machine which is incapable of deciphering bias or context. It simply does what it is told to do. That what it is told to do is compromised by the biases of the people who decided what the rules were, who programmed the machine, and that it is incapable of exercising independent or abstract thought, is actually a good thing -- the social media company claims this is the machine acting "Intelligently" and objectively. This leaves the company with the excuse "WE didn't do it: the bot did".
3. That the machine was programmed by thumb-sucking ignoramuses who are functionally, culturally and historically illiterate, mostly humorless, and trained to be painstakingly obsequious almost from the moment they exited the vagina (although far be it from me to assume anyone's parents' gender), taking advantage of technology that allows them to "earn" a living by making up for the sloppy, haphazard and BIASED nature of their work -- essentially DOING their work for them -- is unnoticed.
I will not, I think, submit what amounts to a written confession to Facebook, mostly because they have some fucking nerve asking for one. Thirty days of not arguing with libtards living under the mistaken impression that they're superior human beings would seem like a vacation.
And again, in the quest to get these pernicious pests out of my life, I find there are few options available. The rest of the tech World is missing a great, big, gift-wrapped opportunity here. Someone gather some investors and start some rivals to these assholes. The returns would be fabulous.
UPDATE: More Context...