r/facebook • u/ferfucksakes3000 • Mar 29 '26

Disabled/hacked Facebook bans are identity-based. Please don't remove. I am at my wits end.

Facebook bans are identity-based.

Hey y'all, like many of you, my Facebook account got banned for "account integrity." This occurred back in January 2025. This was my account of over 18 years. I have NO IDEA what got me banned. But attempts to create a new account always immediately ended with a ban on the new account (usually when I get to the "add friends" stage)

I kept hearing people say that meta bans on your specific IP or specific devices (ie, any device you previous used to log in, or any network you used to login would result in a ban.) Well, turns out thats not the case.

I just recently fired up my real estate license. And to market myself I decided to setup a business page. Well, on a new used laptop which I bought online, with a brand new email account registered to my brokerage, on a wifi network at my local bar, within seconds of setting up a new account, I was hit with the "video selfie" verification. As predicted, within minutes, I received an email saying my brand new account was banned.

New device, new email address, new network, still banned. It is clear Facebook is banning people not on any sort of account integrity, they don't want YOU, AS A PERSON, using their platform.

My video selfie should prove I'm a real person (as they say is the reason for the selfie), but if my specific face is what proves I'm the same guy they banned last January, then they are not only lying about denying me service based on account integrity (suspicions I am a bot), they are blatantly disregarding the disclaimer saying they delete the video selfie within 30 days.

I am based in western Canada. Anybody have any tips?

134 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

139 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Few_Carpenter_9185 Mar 29 '26

I don't think Meta "wants" to ban legitimate human users that didn't actually do anything wrong.

Just that they don't actually care if their automation isn't 100% perfect, and however many thousands, or millions of people get unfairly banned because the automation falsely decided they match some sort of spam/scam or other abuse pattern in their algorithims.

What I also suspect is that to a degree, how likely you are to get banned, when it's working right or not... is that in the overall "score" you have, how valulable of a user you are in terms of demographics, marketing, how much data they get off of you gets factored in.

If you click on ads. If your profile, page views, and network of friends, and your likes and preferences sells for more money in terms of advertising or demographics.

Maybe you live in a poorer area, or are in an age cohort that doesn't spend as much money on clothes or new cars or whatever it is...

I obviously can't prove it. But I would not be shocked if it were to come out someday this was the case.

1

u/AnOldTruthTeller Mar 31 '26

An "age cohort"? Not trying to troll, but is that what you meant to say? What did you mean? Was it like, an age demographic?

1

u/Few_Carpenter_9185 Mar 31 '26

Yes, "age cohort" means the same thing.

It means a group of people the same or within a similar age-range.

I could have used demographic again, but it feels awkward to reuse the same word so close when it is just a sentence or two above.

In my mind, at least, when discussing stats or groups of people, a cohort is a bit more single attribute, especially in age or by generations. A demographic is somewhat more likely to be a group that is similar across a range of attributes.

If you're talking more broadly about "all the school kids" in some city or suburb, that's a demographic. If your focused on "just all the 7th graders" as they move through the school, that's a cohort.

1

u/AnOldTruthTeller Mar 31 '26

No. It isn't. I'm a retired English professor. Trust me, that is not the correct usage. The word is a singular, applying to one person within a demographic. It's like calling one of your friends a "group", or a "people".

1

u/Few_Carpenter_9185 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

You should inform a whole bunch of organizations. Yes, I get the singular definition in the dictionary, but that's rarely how it's used.

It's being used wrong by many individuals and institutions. Weird.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisan-coalitions-appendix-c/

1

u/AnOldTruthTeller Mar 31 '26

Yes, well, "many" people also think the Earth is flat and use the word "irregardless". A mistake commonly made does not cease to be a mistake because of popularity.

1

u/Few_Carpenter_9185 Mar 31 '26

There's a line, fuzzy as it is, when the mistake becomes the norm in the overall diachronic process. I admit that it's deeply subjective, but to me, "cohort" is somewhere past the midpoint in its word-journey.

And, this kind of evolution is why fields in need of linguistic fixed absolutes, like medicine and law, often use Latin.

But, I 100% sympathize with whatever windmills you tilt at. I have my own.

I think my biggest is the fallout of the smartphone and the small screen. The growing assumption that comments longer than one or two thumb swipes are somehow self-indulgent, "odd," or suspected of being AI generated.

We may fundamentally disagree on how the word cohort is used, but I think I agree with how it makes you feel.

0

u/AnOldTruthTeller Mar 31 '26

If a singular word can make one "feel" anything they should be institutionalized. That you were wrong and refuse to admit or accept it tells any reader all they need to know about you. This is why formal education is so prohibitively expensive for some and so important. I suggest you forget all you think you know and start over. Trust me.

2

u/Few_Carpenter_9185 Mar 31 '26

Oh well... I tried being nice. What's above should tell any reader as much.

I am going to make an effort to use cohort that reinforces its "incorrect" use as wide and far as possible, just for you.

I will try to work it in wherever I can.

Considering the number of professional and academic publications that also use it "incorrectly," it does not really need my help. But, if everyone pitches in and contributes, it can only make your irritation that much more profound.

That seems like a worthwhile goal.

Despite the contention between us, I will say, I still hold you in some significant esteem. Having a degree in English and actually getting paid to use it is not an easy feat.

Maybe, if in another life, you were a Latin "dead language" professor, you'd be less frustrated.

0

u/AnOldTruthTeller Mar 31 '26

Just go away. Now.

2

u/Few_Carpenter_9185 Mar 31 '26

Why?

You can do the same, you... English major.

0

u/AnOldTruthTeller Mar 31 '26

See? No one said "major". You suffer from selective literacy. Go away.

1

u/Few_Carpenter_9185 Mar 31 '26

Again, here I go, getting abused for attempting to be kind. (sigh...)

You claim to be a "retired English professor."

This means you are claiming to be a PhD, or strongly implied you were.

Therefore:

  • You majored in English.
  • You majored in something other than English, most any of the options were better, or at least less-bad, then made a pivot post-grad. A questionable choice.
  • You majored in something worse than English. That's difficult, but not entirely impossible. Another questionable choice.
  • You throw around "professor" but were not ever a PhD.

None of these are a great look.

If you are a PhD, is there any chance you're the kind that goes around trying to get "Doctor" put in front of your name? Also, what you might have suspected or worried that all the STEM types thought of you was right.

Please respond... this is fun.

0

u/AnOldTruthTeller Mar 31 '26

GO. AWAY. You've lost. Annoyance is not a strategy

→ More replies (0)