I was just released from Facebook Purgatory, my second stay in that sad and isolated land. Facebook condemned me for violating its “community standards,” including a particular “standard” related to art that Facebook says is not a violation.

I understand a need for standards. But whose standards? In Japan, women’s nipples are blurred in photos because the law doesn’t allow them to be shown. In Oregon, strip club dancers’ art is protected by our Constitution’s free speech clause. In Portland, one of the big events of the year is the Naked Bike Ride, the naked part being quite literal. Newspapers publish photos.

If FB is using a single standard on the world, then don’t we reach a point where the most easily offended people set the standards for everyone else? Carry the logic to its furthest conclusion, should it be mandatory that all women depicted in FB wear hijabs. Don’t want to offend the mullahs in Iran, after all.

For most of 2017 I’ve been creating a daily post on the global social media site I’ve called the “diversion of art” series. Its creation was prompted by a friend, who after Donald J. Trump was inaugurated, posted an image of a painting she liked, saying that she thought it was a good idea to create a diversion from the political climate. I thought it was a great idea, and since the climate wasn’t changing anytime soon and because I love art, I started pulling together images of female and male artists from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries and posting them daily.

Facebook, however, polices images posted there. And an image I posted in December raised the eyebrows of the Facebook police. Their eyebrows are easily raised, for in their policing of art they have become the 21st century version of that Victorian Era opponent of art, the philistine, whom the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer described as “a man without intellectual needs [who] is left without any intellectual pleasures.”

The image was of a painting by 20th century British artist Dod Procter (female, 1890–1972). The painting is of younger and older sisters, the younger nude and the older draping a shawl over her shoulders. There’s nothing salacious or provocative about the painting.

“Sisters” by Dod Procter.

I posted the image, along with several other Procter works, and within a couple of seconds my timeline was hit with a notice declaring that the image violated Facebook’s community standards and demanding that I remove the image. I did remove it, but I was also slapped with a 24-hour ban on posting on my timeline (or anyone else’s), a ban on commenting on anyone’s posts, and found I also was blocked from making any friend requests.

Someone suggested that one of my friends had turned me in, but I know that’s not the case. I posted both of the images before 5 a.m., and the notices hit within a few seconds. I don’t know details, but I’m pretty certain Facebook polices posted images with an algorithm that tags suspect images.

Facebook allows its users to protest a “violation,” and I did protest with the first image on the grounds that the image was of a painting (which Facebook expressly allows), but my appeal was denied. And I just sat out the 24-hour stint in Purgatory.

My second violation occurred this year early on Jan. 13. I had posted several images of Marina Abramovic’s performance art pieces, and again, within 2 seconds, I was forced to remove the image and was slapped with my second offense, this time a 3-day term in Purgatory.

The image showed Abramovic suspended from the ceiling in a crucifix pose, spotlighted in front of a yellow backdrop, wearing a long skirt but topless, and dangling a snake from each hand.

Marina Abramovic in a performance art event.

As a firm defender of free speech, I find being judged summarily by an algorithm and sentenced to Purgatory outrageous.

It’s outrageous, universally, and here’s why. While Facebook may not be a government for which free-speech guarantees under the First Amendment apply, it is in fact larger than most governments in our world, with annual revenue more than $27 billion in 2016 (vastly more than Belgium’s 2016 revenue) and with 2.07 billion monthly active users worldwide in 2017. When it applies an algorithm, a software robot, to censor free speech, it has greater impact than any national government can wield.

Perhaps we should all be outraged that a corporate entity, whose CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has the last word on policy, with uncontrolled power to restrict the freedom of expression of its billions of users.

Facebook clearly exempt works of art in its “community standards”:

“We remove photographs of people displaying genitals or focusing in on fully exposed buttocks. We also restrict some images of female breasts if they include the nipple, but our intent is to allow images that are shared for medical or health purposes. We also allow photos of women actively engaged in breastfeeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring. We also allow photographs of paintings, sculptures, and other art that depicts nude figures. Restrictions on the display of sexual activity also apply to digitally created content unless the content is posted for educational, humorous, or satirical purposes. Explicit images of sexual intercourse are prohibited. Descriptions of sexual acts that go into vivid detail may also be removed.”

Facebook’s algorithm, as its results show, must be partially blind. It tags relatively innocent images and lets others slip by. I have posted images by Félicien Rops, a 19th century Belgian artist known for his erotic and satanic imagery, which flew right by Facebook’s censor. (Study the Rops image closely.) I have also posted graffiti-esque and graphic images by Judith Bernstein which were not flagged.

“Les Sataniques — L’Idole” by Félicien Rops.

“Birth of the Universe № 13” by Judith Bernstein.

Given the volume of images posted, I suspect Facebook simply is unwilling or unable to devote enough human eyes and judgment to appeals. I didn’t even bother to appeal the second offense. After all, who can win against Facebook’s size and power and reluctance to consider appeals. Another 3 days in Purgatory was the more sensible choice.

I’ll be more circumspect going forward, which I’m sure will please Facebook lawyers as they quiver in fear of civil lawsuits. Facebook insists my third offense will bring me a 7-day term in Purgatory, and offenses after that might lead to a lifetime ban in Hell.

Hell is a big risk, but Art, in all its inventiveness and grandeur, is worth a big risk. My friends and I are having too much fun with “diversion of art” to give it up to corporate philistines, be they algorithms or humans.