> Reading the article, "human error" really isn't a reasonable description of what happened: I'm pretty sure to have read that the initial blocking was done by

> Reading the article, "human error" really isn't a reasonable description of what happened: I'm pretty sure to have read that the initial blocking was done by a contractor - I can find a better source, if you want. > This is a (ridiculously severe) problem in several of Facebook's policies, not a classification error. Yes, and that is exactly the point I tried to make: >> changing the AI blackbox to an appeal-less human black box wouldn't improve the situation much Said another way, having underpaid contractors with no time for consideration (and possibly strange policies) is exactly as bad. This is a pretty clear case: That photo should not have been blocked and the idea behind having a human do the evaluation is that he recognizes the historical relevance and, if not outright allowing it, at least consults the relevant authorities whether this is exempt. This could've been done by an AI all the way without a different outcome.