A few years back, I wrote a simple Halloween-like poem and went to publish it on my, then, social media account. To my surprise, it was rejected. When I asked why, they in turn asked me, to the effect, why I thought it might have been rejected. I was stunned.
Some of my fellow members told me, it wasn’t just me, that it was believed to be a mistake that had been corrected. So I submitted it again for publication, and it was again rejected. I asked why and this time there was no answer. Eventually, I closed the account, still utterly mystified. So, when the current account suspensions on social media began to happen, it raised red flags in my mind. It seemed to me I had heard that song before, as the lyrics go. As before, to find out why the account has been suspended, one is invited to read over the rules. In my opinion, ethically, this is not right.
- The person is not told WHY (s)he has been suspended.
2. That makes it appear that the member is wrong and social media is right.
3. The member’s reputation suffers; when one tries to go to that site, it says that the account has been suspended and invites you to scan the rules. There is no way given for the singled out member to defend themself. Emotionally, this is a downer. (Actually, when it happened to me, I wrote a little play about it, and to my amazement, they published it, with fictional characters and names, and I felt great, if confused.) There didn’t seem to be any objective principles involved in the situation.
4. To see one’s fellow-member have their account closed, and treated as if they had done something wrong, yet not saying what, is saddening. This is not how one’s fellow man should be treated in my way of thinking. It may be within the law, but it’s not ethical.
In the fast dissolving line dividing government and private business, here is a backdoor by which the dark specter of censorship can step into our lives: Like charter schools run with mixed funds (both government and private), like our vanishing privacy through government surveillance, like whistleblowers not being able to defend themselves because of an antiquated, ill-worded, outdated law. You are found guilty, because you might have broken one of their rules! and YOU are required to find which rule. Alice in Wonderland, move over!
January 20,2019
When I was looking at some of my old writing I came across the poem that was rejected for no given reason, Dark Legend When the Hodag Walks and the play that I wrote, Bugged:
Dark Legend
When the Hodag Walks
From the frozen black shadows of the past,
Where night reigns forever in caverns vast,
Dark legendary creatures lurk and hide,
Raging at wintry blasts, nostrils, flared and wide.
One especially watches, eyes aglow
A fearsome legend in this land of snow.
Oh, yes, they say he’s a hoax, and they laugh,
But not when they walk on some lonely tract,
Air so cold the trees snap, and fear leaps on their back.
For something is walking heavy behind,
With a nose that snuffles and teeth that grind.
Shouting, “HODAG!” they stumble into town as if blind.
It’s said some never come back alive; and others, they never find.
Hodag, Hodag, monster in the night
Don’t come near me, you frightening sight!
Go your way, stop not in your flight,
Let me be, in this silvery, twilight.
Bugged
In the little town of Bugsville, a busy bee sat,
He ran the website, Dragonflyforum, for writer insects.
They could publish almost anything, in nothing flat.
Provided they always followed guidelines specs.
His motto was:
WHEN YOU WRITE BE BUSY AS A BEE
AND DON’T FORGET TO ADD IMAGES,
IF YOU PLEASE!
Little Letty Lady bug, loved to write.
Sometimes, far into the night, she wrote and composed.
Then, finally, finishing her article, with delight,
Was surprised to find the sun already arose!
She shared with Lacebug, mitebytes, and frittersforflitterers,
Then she felt happy, satisfied and at peace
That she had reached her friends, the insects and critters.
Until one day she ran into the COMPUTER POLICE,
Message from Website security:
NOT ACCEPTED. PREVIOUSLY REJECTED AS SPAM,
SORRY, TAGGED ABUSIVE, MAM.
“Previously rejected? I just wrote it,” she cried, dejected.
She reread the poem in question:
Dawn is a rose,
Wrapped in the song of a lark.
Sunset, a brimming potpourri of prose,
Fragrant dreams, for the heart.
Letty’s wings looked huffled, her spots faded.
A question came on the screen:
Why do you think your writing might have been tagged abusive?
“Shades of *Logical Fallacies,” Letty’s mind careened.
“It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks! That’s inconclusive!
Is it in FACT abusive or spam?
What anyone thinks doesn’t matter beans!
Well, let me be deductive.” Feeling reclusive as a clam,
Letty began to type:
Reasons my writing might be considered spam/abusive:
l. The reader is allergic to roses.
2. The reader is frightened of birds or birdsong.
3. The reader considers metaphors lies. A problem this poses.
4. Potpourris make the reader sneeze; writing about them is wrong.
Looking tired, Letty shuffled off to bed.
Outside a glorious red sunrise painted the sky.
Letty closed the window with a sigh.
