THERE ARE FEW things, I imagine, as positively dumb as a 24-hour Facebook ban.
I mean, you can pretty much get slapped with a can’t post, can’t comment for just about any stupid thing, and it’s not like I posted bare ass or unclothed man peen.
I actually did that. I posted a link with a barely visible thumbnail pic of John Lennon’s naked weenie.
Wait. I mean the thumbnail pic itself was barely visible, not…his… uh…
By the way, I wrote about that 24-hour ban, too.
I thought (mistakenly) that I was being careful about what I was posting and commenting, but as one’s best laid plans don’t always get you laid like you planned, I found myself once again violating Facebook’s confusion-inducing COMMUNITY STANDARDS.
Seriously, does anyone really know what TF Facebook’s “community standards” are?
And, like I said in a previous post, Facebook’s community standards are a well-intentioned, but misguided attempt at moral policing.
I mean, certainly Facebook’s intentions are good. Suggesting that we kill people and leave the corpses for others to see is a problematic statement. It’s reasonable to think that a social media site that ignores a comment like that would be failing in its moral duty to its users.
…assuming we think a social networking site has any moral obligations to its users.
But here’s the thing. J wasn’t talking about harming people. I was talking about birds.
I wanted to kill
Parrots and parakeets are fine, but pigeons can straight-up go F themselves.
This is the meme I violated community standards commenting on:
You see — dear God, I can’t believe I’m saying this — sometimes morality isn’t so cut and dry. Sometimes morality needs a little bit of context.
Now, for the record, I’m a fan of deontology. This guy’s deontological ethics, to be exact.
And, because I’m an ethical kantian, I’m not concerned with the consequences of our actions. What matters to me when evaluating an act is the motivation behind an act.
For Kant, the proper ethical motivation is not consequences — we act from duty.
This is why, according to Kant, we must tell the ax murderer the location of his hiding intended victim. Our ethical duty (or obligation) is to not lie…
Ok, I’m gonna interrupt my post right here to say that Kant explains why we are more morally obligated to not lie to the ax murderer than to not facilitate a murder (and other imperatives)in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. If you haven’t already read it I suggest thumbing through it at least once.
And here’s where I think the problem is.
Facebook seems to be guided by a utilitarian ethical principle. That is, they feel that it is their moral obligation to provide a safe space for social interaction for the greatest number of people. Providing that safe space can, from time to time, result in a bit of over-policing and the occasional (and unnecessary) 24-hour bans. However, as long as the company’s intention is to produce the greatest good for the greatest number, they can provide at least some justification for an hyper-reactive algorithm. My comment simply pinged the algorithm.
My comment, regardless of the intended target, was a threat, and threats pose a danger to he greater Facebook community.
Now, I know that being a utilitarian isn’t only about meaning well; you’ve got to produce results. Utilitarianism is all about consequences. Facebook wants to create a safe space for social interaction (for the greatest number of people), but are they?
I honesty have no idea if they are or not.
According to utilitarianism, we are obligated to consider the effect of (consequences) of our actions on, well, pretty much everybody. “Everybody” may or may not include non-human animals, like pigeons. If “everybody” extends to non-human animals, my kill ’em and let God sort ’em out-inspred comment may have violated Facebook’s community standards and the 24-hour ban was justified. However, as an ethical kantian, I’m not required to extend my moral obligations to animals lacking the capacity for autonomous decision making and rational thought.
Therefore, a mere threat against pigeons is neither a moral outrage nor is it worthy of a 24-hour ban.
After all, I didn’t threaten a person.
Although… I’m not sure leaving the corpses to warn other pigeons is morally kantian, either.
Well… in the end did I deserve a 24-hour Facebook ban? I dunno. Probably. I did make a threat, and even though it was directed at a bunch of lousy pigeons in a meme, I — ugh — violated community standards.
If there’s any lesson to be learned from all of this, it’s that, as a member of a community, I have moral obligations to others, including (and perhaps most importantly) to help nurture an environment where participants feel (yes, feel) safe. And really, I shouldn’t be calling for the mass slaughter of pigeons, anyway.
What I should be worried about is Facebook finally catching all that German poop porn that I posted nine years ago.
That stuff is gonna get me permanently banned.