Apparently I did something that upset the facebook gods.

They claim it was either:
* photos that attack a person or group (don't know of any)
* nudity (not really)
* drug use (nope)
* violence (they left my photo of me brandishing firearms untouched…)

Of course they won't tell me what they were, so how am I supposed to know what to avoid?

The only thing I can think of is that there were some photos of Becky breastfeeding the boy in the NICU.

Apparently kids eating is indecent now? What? Not like I was showing full on boobs or anything, I've seen more revealed people walking down the street.

15 thoughts on “”

  1. They use an automated scanning algorithm. Its not fool proof – earlier today a friend's picture of her standing in front of Niagara falls and another of her standing in her yard with her horse were both taken down for the same thing. I assure you no one flagged those, LOL.

    1. their algorithm goes after people eating, leaves my brandishing of real actual firearms in what appear to be reckless ways (but in fact are a camera trick) intact?

      Back to the drawing board.

      1. it's like how on TV, they can show all sorts of violence and whatnot and nobody bats an eye.

        Yet if there is one hint of a (female) nipple or something, all hell breaks loose.

        We have a constitutional amendment that gives us the right to bear arms,
        well I think we need another one that gives us a right to bare boobies. ;op

        Okay, enough bad jokes. It is totally ridiculous how the boob nazis crack down on that, even when the situation in question is totally non-sexual and very natural, such as breastfeeding a baby.

    1. Ironically they had no problems with the bathtub photos where my boy was protected from the world by nothing more than a baby washcloth, nor the photo of him and his mom showering together (with no genitals showing)

          1. doing my best here to keep them off my internets

            paul@pichu:~$ traceroute6 http://www.clearrate.com
            traceroute to http://www.clearrate.com (2607:f4b8:1:20:213:72ff:fe59:49ea), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets
            1 eth3.psyduck.timminstechnologies.com (2607:f4b8:2600:7::1) 1.768 ms 3.103 ms 4.311 ms
            2 timmins-t1-r.ipv6.clearrate.com (2607:f4b8:ffff:fff0::1) 23.364 ms 23.833 ms 24.544 ms
            3 2607:f4b8:1:1:20e:38ff:fe80:1dbf (2607:f4b8:1:1:20e:38ff:fe80:1dbf) 26.310 ms 26.926 ms 28.490 ms
            4 ns1.clearrate.com (2607:f4b8:1:20:213:72ff:fe59:49ea) 27.062 ms 27.888 ms 29.174 ms
            paul@pichu:~$

          2. Me, too! (Except that my colo provider doesn't have native IPv6 so I had to dig a tunnel)

            wesmills@phoenix:~$ traceroute6 -l http://www.clearrate.com
            traceroute6 to hosting.clearrate.com (2607:f4b8:1:20:213:72ff:fe59:49ea) from 2001:470:1f0e:497::2, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets
            1 cheatv6-2.tunnel.tserv8.dal1.ipv6.he.net (2001:470:1f0e:497::1) 7.465 ms 7.437 ms 6.322 ms
            2 gige-g2-14.core1.dal1.ipv6.he.net (2001:470:0:78::1) 5.534 ms 15.464 ms 7.038 ms
            3 10gigabitethernet5-2.core1.ash1.ipv6.he.net (2001:470:0:3b::2) 41.012 ms 41.536 ms 50.180 ms
            4 100m-0-0.ash.ipv6.he.net (2001:470:0:40::1) 40.457 ms 41.585 ms 40.792 ms
            5 s1-vl101.sfldmidi.clearrate.com (2607:f4b8:1:1:20e:38ff:fe80:1dbf) 81.389 ms 86.276 ms 81.946 ms
            6 ns1.clearrate.com (2607:f4b8:1:20:213:72ff:fe59:49ea) 81.968 ms 81.189 ms 81.349 ms

          3. Very true, and when we[1] look into buying new hardware, I'm going to push for consideration of that. πŸ™‚ Does $employer have KVMoIP?

            [1] And by "we," I mean the non-profit coop we're setting up. πŸ˜€

          4. we don't have kvmoip, no. But you're free to colocate one. πŸ™‚

            What I found is awesome is either xen or vmware esxi (starting to prefer vmware more for a number of little reasons)

            Both of those basically allow you to kvm the hosts you care about with minimal fuss.

Leave a Reply