On July 23, 2025, Meta notified us that the Facebook account operated by Shohei KIMURA, the representative of the bitBuyer Project and a verified Meta account holder, had been suspended on the grounds of an alleged “Community Standards violation related to cybersecurity.”

We hereby express our serious concern and deep regret regarding the lack of transparency in this process.

As of this writing, apart from Meta’s notification that “a review request cannot be submitted,” we have not been provided with any disclosure regarding the specific facts of the alleged violation or the basis for this decision.

The bitBuyer Project has formally requested a prompt disclosure of the reasons for the suspension and the restoration of the account. Should sufficient answers not be received within the prescribed timeframe, we intend to publicly express, on this official website, our position that significant concerns remain regarding Meta’s transparency and accountability in its platform operations.

Contact and Requests for Removal/Correction

If you wish to request the removal or correction of any wording or expression in articles on this official site, please send an email to bitbuyer.0.8.1.a@icloud.com (machine translation accepted) including the following five items:

1. Identified content (URL, paragraph number, quoted lines, etc.)
2. Legal or contractual basis (e.g., defamation, relevant Terms of Service provision)
3. Classification as a factual assertion or opinion/commentary (see the next section of this document)
4. Reason why alternatives to removal (annotation or correction) are insufficient
5. Requested response deadline (a reasonable period for review on our side)

Important: Please Send a Confirmation Notification

The inbox for the above email address is checked about once a month. After sending your email, please send an SMS (recommended) to +8170‑3666‑0022 in Japanese stating that you have sent an email (machine translation is acceptable). Phone calls are also possible, but please note that I only speak Japanese.

We believe that constructive out‑of‑court resolution (e.g., ADR) is preferable, while maintaining transparency in publication.
If you provide reasonable, logical, and specific feedback in line with the OECD Guidelines, we will promptly review, correct, or update the content.

Legal and Operational Policy for This Site

This chapter applies across all Meta-related articles published on this site (including past articles and rare event observation notes).
Last updated: July 26, 2025 (JST)

1. Scope and Updates

This chapter serves as the foundational policy (“hub policy”) applicable to all articles I (Shohei Kimura, representative of the bitBuyer Project) publish regarding Meta Platforms, Inc.
It is based on the facts preserved and understood as of July 23, 2025 (JST).
If Meta discloses logs, provides an official response, or presents reasonable corrections, I will promptly make additions, corrections, and updates to the content.

2. Structure of Articles (Uniform Rules)

Each article generally follows a three-layered structure:

• Observed Facts
  Documentation of verifiable events such as dates, notification texts, procedural specifications, review timelines, etc.
  Rare event articles will explicitly note where primary evidence (e.g., screenshots) is largely unpreserved.
• Opinion (Reasonable Inferences, Evaluations, Views)
  Use of clear qualifying terms like “possibility,” “inference,” and “I believe,” explicitly indicating that no conclusive factual assertions are intended.
  Rare event articles will state that “all opinions are derived entirely from dialogue with ChatGPT.”
• Evidence Location and Fixation (Overview)
  For preserved items:
  • Application of SHA-256 hashing, creation of a manifest, and timestamping through third-party trace mechanisms (e.g., GitHub commits, self-addressed email with Received headers, certified mail).
  • Preparation of a chain of custody (acquisition, dates, storage, copies/submissions).
  • Originals will be made available through appropriate legal procedures (e.g., court orders, arbitration, or discovery).
    Rare event articles will emphasize that they are “observation notes” based on unpreserved evidence.

3. Prerequisites for Requests to Remove or Correct Content

If Meta (or its representatives) requests removal or correction of any portion of this site’s content, the following five points must be disclosed to ensure corporate fairness, transparency, and accountability:

1. Identification of the Content in Question
   URL, paragraph number, quoted lines, or clearly defined text segments.
2. Legal or Contractual Basis
   Examples: defamation (e.g., state tort law), trade libel or business disparagement, privacy rights, copyright (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.), or relevant provisions of Meta’s Terms of Service.
3. Classification as “Factual Assertion” or “Opinion/Commentary”
   Clarify whether the content constitutes an assertion of fact lacking truth/substantial justification or an opinion/commentary lacking fair basis, and state the grounds.
4. Scope and Reason for the Requested Action
   Explain whether full removal is necessary or whether annotation/correction would suffice, and why.
5. Response Deadline
   Propose a reasonable period for review and response (e.g., no fewer than X business days).

Note:
Broad or vague removal/correction demands lacking these specifics may be cited as failures of corporate fairness, transparency, and accountability.
While I understand the inclusion of “no admission” disclaimers (stating that the request does not constitute acknowledgment of truth), the responsibility remains to explain which expressions violate which legal or contractual requirements and how.

4. Correction and Update Policy

If Meta provides a reasonable and specific explanation, or if a third party provides verifiable evidence showing errors in my observations, understanding, or inferences, I will promptly add corrections or updates.
Each article will display its “date of update” and “correction details,” with visible revision history.
I reiterate that no conclusive factual assertions are intended, and that final factual determinations rest with Meta’s official responses, disclosed logs, or appropriate legal proceedings.

5. Evidence Location and Technical Fixation (Overview)

(For rare event articles, primary evidence is often unpreserved. The following applies to the permanent suspension incident and other preserved materials.)

• Exporting originals without edits and applying SHA-256 hashing.
• Creating a manifest (list of hashes) and hashing the manifest itself.
• Fixing the manifest’s hash through multiple third-party traces (e.g., GitHub commits, self-addressed emails with Received headers, certified self-mailing).
• Maintaining an append-only chain of custody (detailing acquirer, date, storage, copies/submissions).
• Making originals available through proper legal procedures.
• Considering a litigation hold request to Meta for evidence preservation.

6. Publication Policy and Responses to “Non-Disclosure Orders”

I will publish developments in principle, prioritizing public interest, accountability, and transparency.
However, if subject to a valid legal order (e.g., court order, arbitration award, protective order, seal), I will comply within that scope.
Even then, I will note, where permissible, that “content has been withheld under legal order.” If not permissible, I will indicate only that restriction exists.

7. Method for Submissions or Inquiries (Template Recommended)

Communications should include the five elements outlined in Section 3:

1. Identified content (URL, paragraph number, or quoted portion).
2. Legal or contractual basis.
3. Classification as fact or opinion/commentary, with argumentation.
4. Justification for why removal, rather than annotation or correction, is necessary.
5. Response deadline (reasonable review period).

Abstract requests that lack specific disclosure (e.g., “remove all articles”) will require resubmission in accordance with the above template, providing concrete and detailed identification of the content in question.
If no legal or contractual basis is provided, or if a reasonable agreement on the interpretation of the applicable terms cannot be reached, I will consider referring the matter to the appropriate administrative or regulatory authorities (including, where applicable, the OECD Guidelines contact point) and pursuing judicial proceedings as necessary.

8. Jurisdictional and Legal Context (General Notes)

This site primarily considers Japanese law but recognizes that, under Meta’s Terms of Service, issues of governing law, jurisdiction, and arbitration clauses may arise.
Depending on the jurisdiction, protections for public interest speech may apply, such as anti-SLAPP laws (e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16).
I will continue to pursue appropriate defenses and corrections based on public interest, purpose of public benefit, truth/substantial justification, and the protections afforded to opinion and commentary.

§ 425.16. Special motion to strike strategic lawsuits against public participation
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.
(b)
(1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.
(2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.
(c) In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover that defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion…
(d) For purposes of this section, “act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue” includes:
(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;
(2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;
(3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest;
(4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.
(e) The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time…
(f) The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion…
(g) All discovery in the action shall be stayed…
(h) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall be appealable…
(i) This section shall not apply to any action brought against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services…
(j) The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance…
(k) This section shall apply to any action commenced on or after January 1, 1997.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16（California Anti‑SLAPP Statute）

9. Conclusion

I strongly urge Meta to fulfill its reasonable duty of accountability by clarifying its procedures, decision-making rationale, and operational processes.
If Meta (or its representatives) seeks content removal/correction, it must follow Section 3 (“Prerequisites for Requests to Remove or Correct Content”) by providing specific grounds and scope.
Making only broad or vague demands for deletion or correction, without disclosure of reasoning, may itself be cited as evidence of deficient corporate fairness, transparency, and accountability.

I will continue to distinguish observed facts from opinion, enforce this correction/update policy, and preserve technical evidence for integrity and traceability.

List of Rare Event Articles

1. How I Got That Elusive Meta Verification Badge on Facebook — And Why It Actually Mattered
2. How Facebook’s Algorithm Responded to Meta Verification: The Moment It Recognized Me as an Open-Source Developer
3. How Facebook’s Algorithm Responded to Meta Verification (ver. 2): When “New Talent” Met Open-Source
4. When Meta Began Observing Syntax: Phase Three in the Framing of an OSS Developer

---

Background and Context

On July 23, 2025, I, Shohei KIMURA, the representative of the bitBuyer Project, formally submitted a report through the Meta Help Center regarding potential copyright and portrait rights infringements on Facebook.

The report concerned the following two pages, which, to the best of my knowledge, have been continuously posting identical or highly similar content (The URL is provided for the purpose of ensuring verifiability. This is not verified personal information, and the content referenced reflects the state at the time of posting.):

• Page A (presumed to possibly be the operator of the original content)
  https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100094982018007
• Page B (a page about which I have strong suspicions regarding potential unauthorized reproduction)
  https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61551729041042

To verify the legitimacy of these pages, I sent identical inquiry messages to both. Shortly thereafter, my account was blocked by Page B, resulting in the removal of the follow status. I interpret this behavior as raising a reasonable suspicion that the page in question may lack the intention to respond to an inquiry from the rights holder, and I recognize that further careful examination is necessary to determine whether unauthorized reproduction has occurred.

This statement reflects the facts as confirmed by me as of July 23, 2025 (JST) and my resulting views (including expressions of presumption and suspicion). Should any inaccuracies be identified, I will promptly correct, supplement, or update this statement. This post is not intended as a conclusive assertion of fact but as a presentation of concerns and my position on the matter.

Below is the message I sent to both pages:

Dear Sir or Madam,
I apologize for the sudden message. I am currently reviewing your Facebook pages (“Mumei” and “Moe”) and have observed that both pages are posting identical content. I am reaching out to verify the authenticity of the content publisher. If your page is indeed the original source, I would greatly appreciate it if you could confirm this. For your reference, I am sharing the URL of the other page (omitted here).
Thank you for your time and consideration.

We have formally requested that Meta verify the legitimate ownership of the content in question and take appropriate action regarding the page that we suspect of unauthorized reproduction.

Below is the exact text of our request. This is a reproduction of the communication I, Shohei KIMURA, sent to Meta as of July 23, 2025 (JST).

Please note that expressions such as “clear” and “strongly indicates” in the quoted text reflect my recognition and evaluation at the time (i.e., my opinions), and are not intended as conclusive assertions of fact. Should any inaccuracies be identified, I will promptly correct, supplement, or update this statement.

Subject: Report of Copyright and Portrait Rights Infringement on Facebook

Dear Meta Support Team,
　I am writing to report a case of clear copyright infringement and violation of portrait rights involving two Facebook pages.
　I had been following two pages with different names:
・Page A (presumed original content owner): https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100094982018007
・Page B (suspected unauthorized duplicator): https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61551729041042
　Both pages consistently posted identical content. To verify the authenticity of the content owner, I sent the same inquiry message to both pages. Immediately after receiving my inquiry, Page B blocked my account, which resulted in my being forcibly unfollowed. This behavior strongly indicates that Page B is engaged in unauthorized duplication of content, infringing both copyright and portrait rights.
　For reference, I will also attach screenshots of the inquiry messages I sent to both pages using the designated form.
　I respectfully request that Meta investigate this matter, verify the original content owner, and take appropriate action against the page found to be engaging in unauthorized duplication and rights violations.
　Thank you for your attention and support.

Sincerely,
木村翔平

However, shortly after submitting the report, I received a notification that my account (bearing a Meta verification badge) had been suspended.

To the best of my knowledge, Page B has over 120,000 followers, making it a large-scale page. I have serious suspicions that the suspension of my account may have resulted from a false or inaccurate report submitted to Meta by the operators of that page or related parties.

At present, Meta has not provided any disclosure of the specific reasons for this action. This statement reflects my understanding of the facts as of July 23, 2025, and my opinion based on that understanding. Should any inaccuracies be identified, I will promptly correct, supplement, or update this statement.

Meta’s Response and Possible Reasons for the Suspension

In the appeal process provided by Meta for this suspension, I found no opportunity to submit a free-form rebuttal or factual explanation. Instead, the process was completed solely by confirming I was not a robot via reCAPTCHA and uploading a facial photograph. I hold serious concerns that this is an extremely insufficient and non-transparent process.

To the best of my understanding, such a process appears consistent with an operational approach in which a report of “impersonation” triggers a temporary account lock, prioritizing identity verification first. In other words, at the time of suspension, Meta may not have yet identified “whom the account is allegedly impersonating,” and the process may instead involve accepting a report, enforcing a lock, and then conducting a truth assessment after verifying the account holder’s identity. (As of now, Meta has provided no official explanation of this process.) I also understand that this operational approach applies even to accounts bearing a Meta verification badge.

In this case, I strongly suspect that a false or inaccurate “impersonation report,” possibly including retaliatory intent, was submitted by the page with over 120,000 followers (Page B), and that Meta may have suspended my account before conducting sufficient factual verification. However, I recognize that the ultimate determination of the facts should rest with Meta’s investigation and response or appropriate legal proceedings.

This statement reflects the facts as I understood them as of July 23, 2025 (JST), and my opinion based on that understanding. Should any inaccuracies be identified, I will promptly correct, supplement, or update this statement.

An Unusually Swift Review — and Its Conclusion

I infer that my submitted appeal may have been processed on a priority basis due to my status as a Meta verification badge holder. Based on my experience and generally available explanations, I understand that reviews of suspended accounts typically take around 24 hours. However, according to my recorded timestamps, the result in this case was delivered in less than two hours—an exceptionally short timeframe, which raises serious questions and concerns regarding transparency.

However, the outcome of that review was as follows and appeared entirely one-sided (excerpt from the original message):

“After reviewing your account, we have determined that it still violates our Community Standards related to cybersecurity. This decision cannot be appealed.”

No specific violation was identified, no rationale for the decision was disclosed, and even an additional review was rendered impossible. Such handling constitutes what I must regard as a highly closed process.

This statement reflects the facts as I understood them as of July 23, 2025 (JST), and my opinion based on that understanding. Should any inaccuracies be identified, I will promptly correct, supplement, or update this statement.

Meta’s Lack of Accountability and Transparency

The review notification merely stated that my account “violates Community Standards related to cybersecurity,” without providing any explanation as to which specific actions were considered violations.

I have never engaged in any activities on Facebook that would constitute cybersecurity risks, such as unauthorized access, data harvesting, or the distribution of malicious software. As a Meta verification badge holder conducting official activities, I also have no motive or reason to engage in such behavior.

One possible explanation I can conceive is that my publication of a LINE ID for the purpose of preventing fraud may have been considered problematic. However, I understand that such an action can be argued as serving a public interest, and that the ultimate determination of its legality or permissibility depends on the circumstances of each individual case. (For clarity, I am not making any conclusive evaluation in this statement.)

Thus, what “cybersecurity-related risky behavior” Meta believes I engaged in remains entirely unclear. Unless Meta discloses the specific facts and reasoning behind its decision, this question cannot be resolved.

An account suspension based on such an opaque decision-making process affects not only me personally but also the brand value of the bitBuyer Project. Accordingly, if Meta fails to fulfill its accountability obligations, I will have no choice but to publicly express, on this official website, my position that serious concerns remain regarding Meta’s transparency and accountability in its operations.

I am setting August 31, 2025 (JST) as the deadline for a sufficient and concrete explanation. If no adequate response is provided by that date, I intend to publish the above-mentioned position. (For the avoidance of doubt, this is a statement of my opinion and intention—not an assertion that such publication is “legally validated.”)

This statement reflects the facts as I understood them as of July 23, 2025 (JST), and my opinion based on that understanding. Should any inaccuracies be identified, I will promptly correct, supplement, or update this statement.

Next Steps and Formal Protest to Meta

I regard this account suspension as an action by Meta that raises serious concerns regarding procedural transparency and a lack of accountability (my view).

Accordingly, I intend to send a formal written protest and inquiry (including a request for disclosure of reasons) to Meta Platforms, Inc. (U.S. headquarters) and Facebook Japan G.K. (Japanese subsidiary) via a traceable delivery method (registered mail) to ensure proof of receipt.

In parallel, I will also send the same content via email to Meta’s legal and public relations departments, requesting confirmation of receipt.

This document will clearly outline:

• A demand for disclosure of the decision-making process and the basis for the suspension,
• A request for the identification and explanation of the specific facts underlying the alleged violation, and
• A request for corrective measures and responses regarding the damage caused to my personal reputation and the brand value of the bitBuyer Project.

This statement reflects the facts as I understood them as of July 23, 2025 (JST), and my opinion based on that understanding. Should any inaccuracies be identified, I will promptly correct, supplement, or update this statement.

Below is the protest letter that I intend to send.

To the Legal Department of Meta Platforms, Inc.
　My name is Shohei KIMURA, holder of a Meta Verification Badge and representative of the bitBuyer Project (Account URL: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61572398409812).
　My Facebook account has been permanently suspended, and I must strongly emphasize that the appeal process provided was limited exclusively to identity verification. Based on this, I firmly conclude that this suspension is the result of a false impersonation report made by a third party. Should this indeed be the case, it exposes critical deficiencies in Meta’s review system, representing a serious issue with international implications that undermines trust in the platform’s integrity. Moreover, this action differs significantly from standard procedures for Community Guidelines violations and constitutes an extremely unjust measure that lacks transparency and accountability. I hereby immediately and strongly protest this action. I will pursue a full and thorough investigation into the grounds and circumstances of this unjustified action and am prepared to take all necessary measures, including legal action, if required.
　Furthermore, I demand an explanation for the notice stating: “After reviewing your account, we found that it still violates our Community Standards regarding cybersecurity. You cannot request another review of this decision.” My account has not engaged in any activity that could be construed as a security threat, nor have I committed any violation that would justify such an extreme measure. I therefore request a clear and detailed explanation of the specific grounds on which this determination was made.
　If no such explanation is provided, I will consider Meta’s silence as tacit acknowledgment of this unjustified action and will publish a logical and reasoned statement on the official bitBuyer Project website. I will also publicly disclose that Meta is failing to operate in a manner that is fair, transparent, and accountable. This disclosure will also be incorporated into the bitBuyer Telling initiative, an effort within the bitBuyer Project to document and publish significant technological and societal events in 50 countries, 50 languages, and 50 cultural contexts.
　To avoid any misunderstanding, I wish to make it clear: the bitBuyer Project and the bitBuyer Telling initiative are unprecedented ventures, encompassing no fewer than five world-first undertakings, with as many as ten in development. From this perspective, I can state unequivocally that my influence as the representative of the bitBuyer Project will continue to grow substantially.
　Accordingly, I set a deadline of August 31, 2025 for a satisfactory response, with an initial reply required within seven (7) business days of receipt of this letter. Failure to provide a logical and convincing explanation by this date will result in formal protests lodged with both Meta Platforms, Inc. (U.S. headquarters) and Facebook Japan G.K., as well as consultations with international consumer protection bodies (including the OECD), corporate accountability organizations, and other relevant authorities, followed by broad public disclosure on an international scale.
　This suspension has caused severe disruption to my activities as the representative of the bitBuyer Project and is grossly unjust and unacceptable. The project is currently in the midst of an important branding strategy, and immediate sharing of official announcements via my verified Facebook account is indispensable. In particular, articles scheduled for publication on July 24 and July 26 (JST) are central to this strategy, and any delay in sharing them through my account will cause irreparable damage to the brand’s value.
　Additionally, my account has achieved exceptional metrics, as documented on the bitBuyer Project’s official site:

・Over 1,700 “likes”
・An engagement rate of 7.45% (topics-to-likes ratio)
・A discussion rate 6.3 million times higher than that of Meta Japan’s official page

　Given that the Meta Verification Badge conferred significant social credibility, its removal without disclosure of the reasons constitutes defamation. From the perspective of protecting the brand value of the bitBuyer Project, I am formally considering the pursuit of defamation claims and other legal remedies as its representative.
　In light of the above, I formally request the following:

1. Immediate re-evaluation of this matter by a senior Meta officer
2. Written disclosure of the specific reasons for this suspension, in light of my status as a verified account holder
3. Restoration of my account by July 24 (JST) to prevent further brand value damage

　Should this matter not be resolved promptly, I will be left with no choice but to pursue legal action for brand value damage and reputational harm.
　I respectfully urge your immediate attention and resolution of this matter.

【Important Notice / My Position Regarding This Letter and Future Actions】
This letter reflects the facts as I, Shohei KIMURA, the representative of the bitBuyer Project, understood them as of July 23, 2025 (JST), and includes my opinions and evaluations based on that understanding.

With respect to Meta’s suspension action in this matter, I hold serious concerns regarding transparency and accountability, particularly in light of the current lack of disclosure regarding the decision-making process and the basis for the action. However, I understand that the ultimate determination of the facts should rest with Meta’s investigation and response or appropriate legal proceedings.

Expressions in this letter such as “false impersonation report,” “unjust,” or “potentially defamatory” reflect my views derived from the facts I have understood and are not intended as conclusive assertions of fact. Should any inaccuracies be identified, I will promptly correct, supplement, or update this statement.

Additionally, numerical references such as the “6.3 million-fold topic rate” are original estimates based on data I obtained at the relevant time, with the underlying comparisons, calculation methods, and timeframes disclosed in prior publications.

This letter is not intended to threaten or intimidate, but rather to make a reasonable inquiry and request for corrective measures aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability in platform operations.

I strongly urge Meta to fulfill its accountability obligations and to take transparent action, including the reversal of the account suspension. If no sufficient and concrete response is received from Meta by August 31, 2025 (JST), I intend to update this publication to reflect my position.

The Suspected False Report by Page B and Its Probable Causal Connection to the Suspension of My Account

As of July 23, 2025 (JST), I, Shohei KIMURA, the representative of the bitBuyer Project, have assessed the facts as I currently understand them—namely:

1. That a report of “impersonation” or similar nature by Page B (or the reporting party) is presumed to have preceded the suspension,
2. That Meta’s appeal process was, in practice, a purely procedural formality limited to a facial photo upload, and
3. That as a result, my account was permanently suspended without disclosure of the underlying reasons.

Taken together, these lead me to strongly infer the probable existence of a substantial causal connection between the actions of Page B (or the reporting party) and the suspension of my account.

That said, the ultimate determination of the facts depends on Meta’s disclosure of logs and the results of its investigation. I am formally requesting that Meta provide:
(a) logs identifying the reporting party,
(b) the content and timestamp of the report,
(c) documentation of the internal review process and the reasoning behind the decision, and
(d) evidence preservation and disclosure of the process that led to the “no further appeal” determination.

If these are not appropriately disclosed, I will consider and, as necessary, pursue legal measures including evidence preservation requests, information disclosure motions, and provisional remedies.

I am also requesting that the operators of Page B (or the reporting party) provide an explanation of the facts in this matter and any counter-evidence. If no reasonable explanation is provided, I will have no choice but to consider pursuing appropriate legal accountability, given the operational harm and reputational damage to my business activities (the operation and branding of the bitBuyer Project).

Expressions in this section such as “strongly infer” and “suspicions” reflect my views based on the facts as I currently understand them and are not intended as conclusive assertions of fact. Should any inaccuracies be identified, I will promptly correct, supplement, or update this statement.

If Meta does not provide a sufficient and concrete response or disclosure by August 31, 2025 (JST), I intend to update this publication to include a detailed timeline, evidence, and my positions (including legal considerations).

Observed facts and multiple personal opinions of Shohei KIMURA

Seven business days have passed since I sent an inquiry email to Meta, and no response has been received even after the initial response deadline. Therefore, I am updating this post. The emails were sent to the following addresses:

• appeals@fb.com
• disabled@fb.com
• info@support.facebook.com
• japan-communications@fb.com

Strongest Inference: Permanent Suspension Triggered by a Mismatch Between Automated Risk Detection Flows and the Identity Verification Process

[Observed Facts]

• On July 23, 2025 (JST), my Meta-verified Facebook account was permanently suspended for the vague reason of “violating the Community Standards on Cybersecurity.”
• The notification contained no explanation of the specific violation, the grounds for the decision, the evidence used, or the review process.
• The appeals procedure was limited solely to identity verification (uploading a facial photo) and did not allow for free-text rebuttals or submission of supporting materials.
• The review result was returned in under two hours, stating only “the violation still stands, further review is not possible,” with no opportunity for re-appeal.
• At the time of my initial Meta verification, I had submitted a government-issued photo ID (My Number card) and successfully passed KYC; in contrast, for this suspension appeal, I submitted a close-range selfie taken personally.
• Immediately after I formally reported via Meta’s Help Center a suspected case of unauthorized reproduction and violation of image rights by a large Facebook page with over 120,000 followers, this permanent suspension was enacted — establishing a clear temporal proximity.
• I sent a formal protest letter to Meta requesting an initial response within seven business days and a final response by August 31, 2025 (JST), but no sufficient or specific response has been received to date.
• I was a Meta-verified user, implying that Meta had acknowledged a certain level of trustworthiness in my account.
• While other users/pages facing similar issues typically received lighter measures (such as post removal or warnings), my account received the harshest measure — immediate permanent suspension.
• The bitBuyer Project posts mainly consisted of open-source software (OSS) design philosophy and technical explanations, without direct financial product promotions or solicitations; exaggerated expressions in fictional character quotes were marked as part of unfinished creative works.

[Reasonable Hypothesis Derived from These Facts]

It is plausible that my account’s operational patterns — posting five fixed-format posts daily (three multilingual written posts in Japanese, American English, and Standard Spanish; one #XXXXSaid character quote in Japanese or brand-identity expression in Standard Arabic; and one idol/cosplay photo share) across eight specific time slots (17:00 / 17:30 / 18:00 / 20:00 / 20:15 / 20:30 / 21:00 / 01:00 JST), synchronized to the :10 second mark with multilingual thematic consistency, unified hashtags, and structured content — resembled automated behavior when interpreted by machine-learning-based risk detection systems.

Combined with proximity to fraudulent account clusters (raising network risk scores) and the significant difference between the original government ID photo and the new close-range selfie (differences in geometry, background, texture, etc., potentially lowering facial-match confidence scores), these factors likely triggered an automated “protective lock” flow.

Subsequently, the identity verification process was handled in a separate automated layer, where the match score failed to meet thresholds due to photo differences and behavioral flags, resulting in a template-like “violation still stands” outcome produced by automated review — all with limited human oversight.

[Summarized Key Points]

• Behavioral signals: Fixed-second (:10) posting, five consecutive scheduled posts, and structured multilingual consistency are easily classified as automation/repetitive behavior by detection systems.
• Network environment: Proximity to high-risk clusters can significantly raise account risk scores in graph-based detection models.
• Identity verification mismatch: Geometric and texture differences (e.g., ear shape, contours, depth of field) between an official ID photo and a close-up selfie can lead to a non-match even for the same person.
• Short review time: The under-two-hour review suggests a heavily automated, template-driven process with minimal substantive human review.

[Conclusion (Subject to Revision)]

The strongest inference is that this permanent suspension likely resulted from a combination of automated flags (bot-like/repetitive behavior + proximity to high-risk clusters), failure to meet identity verification thresholds, and limited human review, leading to the continuation of a template-based decision.

Thus, this incident can be explained without assuming intentional targeting by Meta personnel. The core issue lies in the lack of transparency — failure to disclose reasons and the absence of a meaningful review process.

If Meta provides disclosure of the applied categories (e.g., Spam / Inauthentic / Compromised), the failure codes for identity verification, and the types of evidence referenced, I will promptly add corrections and updates.

Additional Inference 1: The “Non-Denial” Possibility of a Significant Defect in Meta’s System Operations or Management Structure

[Observed Facts]

• On July 23, 2025 (JST), my Meta-verified Facebook account was permanently suspended for the vague reason of “violating the Community Standards on Cybersecurity.”
• The notification contained no explanation of the specific violation, the grounds for the decision, the evidence used, or the review process.
• The appeals procedure was limited solely to identity verification (uploading a facial photo) and did not allow for free-text rebuttals or submission of supporting materials.
• The review result was returned in under two hours, stating only “the violation still stands, further review is not possible,” with no opportunity for re-appeal.
• At the time of my initial Meta verification, I had submitted a government-issued photo ID (My Number card) and successfully passed KYC; in contrast, for this suspension appeal, I submitted a close-range selfie taken personally.
• Immediately after I formally reported via Meta’s Help Center a suspected case of unauthorized reproduction and violation of image rights by a large Facebook page with over 120,000 followers, this permanent suspension was enacted — establishing a clear temporal proximity.
• I sent a formal protest letter to Meta requesting an initial response within seven business days and a final response by August 31, 2025 (JST), but no sufficient or specific response has been received to date.
• I was a Meta-verified user, implying that Meta had acknowledged a certain level of trustworthiness in my account.
• While other users/pages facing similar issues typically received lighter measures (such as post removal or warnings), my account received the harshest measure — immediate permanent suspension.
• The bitBuyer Project posts mainly consisted of open-source software (OSS) design philosophy and technical explanations, without direct financial product promotions or solicitations; exaggerated expressions in fictional character quotes were marked as part of unfinished creative works.

[Reasonable Hypothesis Derived from These Facts]

• In Meta’s account suspension process, it cannot be ruled out that mechanical and procedural first-line responses were prioritized while substantive fact-checking was de-emphasized.
• It cannot be ruled out that false reports (e.g., impersonation claims) were processed automatically or formally, and that suspension measures were enacted without sufficient investigation or verification.
• There remain serious doubts as to whether careful re-investigation or evidence review was conducted before enforcing a permanent suspension, which requires a higher degree of caution.

[Summarized Key Points]

1. An appeals process that is formalistic and automation-oriented, with no room for narrative explanations, is being applied.
2. An unusually rapid re-review (under two hours) was conducted, suggesting that substantive verification was unlikely to have taken place.
3. The chronology — my account being suspended immediately after reporting a rights violation — suggests a system structure vulnerable to the abuse of false reports.

[Conclusion (Subject to Revision)]

Based on the above observed facts and hypotheses, it can be reasonably inferred that Meta’s account management practices lack safeguards to prevent false reports or system abuse and that even users with Meta verification badges, who hold a level of social credibility, may not be afforded adequate verification processes.

However, this is merely a reasonable inference based on the facts as I understood them as of July 23, 2025 (JST).

If Meta discloses logs or provides a formal response, including specific explanations or corrective measures (such as disclosure of reasons, improvements to operational processes, or the provision of a re-review pathway), I will promptly supplement, correct, or update this assessment.

Additional Inference 2: The “Non-Denial” Possibility That a False Report by a Third Party Combined with Meta’s Inadequate Investigation Triggered the Suspension

[Observed Facts]

• On July 23, 2025 (JST), my Meta-verified Facebook account was permanently suspended for the vague reason of “violating the Community Standards on Cybersecurity.”
• The notification contained no explanation of the specific violation, the grounds for the decision, the evidence used, or the review process.
• The appeals procedure was limited solely to identity verification (uploading a facial photo) and did not allow for free-text rebuttals or submission of supporting materials.
• The review result was returned in under two hours, stating only “the violation still stands, further review is not possible,” with no opportunity for re-appeal.
• At the time of my initial Meta verification, I had submitted a government-issued photo ID (My Number card) and successfully passed KYC; in contrast, for this suspension appeal, I submitted a close-range selfie taken personally.
• Immediately after I formally reported via Meta’s Help Center a suspected case of unauthorized reproduction and violation of image rights by a large Facebook page with over 120,000 followers, this permanent suspension was enacted — establishing a clear temporal proximity.
• I sent a formal protest letter to Meta requesting an initial response within seven business days and a final response by August 31, 2025 (JST), but no sufficient or specific response has been received to date.
• I was a Meta-verified user, implying that Meta had acknowledged a certain level of trustworthiness in my account.
• While other users/pages facing similar issues typically received lighter measures (such as post removal or warnings), my account received the harshest measure — immediate permanent suspension.
• The bitBuyer Project posts mainly consisted of open-source software (OSS) design philosophy and technical explanations, without direct financial product promotions or solicitations; exaggerated expressions in fictional character quotes were marked as part of unfinished creative works.

[Reasonable Hypothesis Derived from These Facts]

• It cannot be ruled out that false reports (e.g., impersonation claims) were internally accepted and processed automatically or formally, leading to the activation of a suspension measure without sufficient fact-checking.
• Given the unusually short processing time (under two hours) and the lack of opportunities for rebuttal, it cannot be ruled out that no meaningful re-investigation, evidence review, or verification of whether the report was false took place.
• Even for a Meta-verified user, whose verification badge reflects a certain level of social credibility, it cannot be ruled out that the same automated flow as for regular accounts was applied to impose the most severe sanction, with insufficient consistency in policy application and a lack of accountability.

[Summarized Key Points]

1. It cannot be ruled out that false reports were accepted without substantive verification, leading to an automated suspension.
2. Given that the re-review was completed in under two hours and was deemed “not subject to further review,” it cannot be ruled out that no meaningful re-investigation or evidence review took place.
3. Despite being a Meta-verified user, the most severe sanction was imposed through the same automated processing flow as regular accounts, resulting in insufficient adherence to policy implementation and accountability.

[Conclusion (Subject to Revision)]

Based on these observed facts, it can be reasonably inferred that this permanent suspension was likely triggered by a combination of a false report by a third party and Meta’s inadequate investigation.

However, this is merely my assessment as of now, made without access to Meta’s logs or any formal response.

If Meta provides specific explanations — such as the content of the report, logs identifying the reporting party, details of the internal review process, and the rationale behind the “no further review” decision — I will promptly supplement, correct, or update this record.

Additional Inference 3: The “Non-Denial” Possibility That the Application of Community Standards Lacks Consistency and Could Be Viewed as Arbitrary

[Observed Facts]

• On July 23, 2025 (JST), my Meta-verified Facebook account was permanently suspended for the vague reason of “violating the Community Standards on Cybersecurity.”
• The notification contained no explanation of the specific violation, the grounds for the decision, the evidence used, or the review process.
• The appeals procedure was limited solely to identity verification (uploading a facial photo) and did not allow for free-text rebuttals or submission of supporting materials.
• The review result was returned in under two hours, stating only “the violation still stands, further review is not possible,” with no opportunity for re-appeal.
• At the time of my initial Meta verification, I had submitted a government-issued photo ID (My Number card) and successfully passed KYC; in contrast, for this suspension appeal, I submitted a close-range selfie taken personally.
• Immediately after I formally reported via Meta’s Help Center a suspected case of unauthorized reproduction and violation of image rights by a large Facebook page with over 120,000 followers, this permanent suspension was enacted — establishing a clear temporal proximity.
• I sent a formal protest letter to Meta requesting an initial response within seven business days and a final response by August 31, 2025 (JST), but no sufficient or specific response has been received to date.
• I was a Meta-verified user, implying that Meta had acknowledged a certain level of trustworthiness in my account.
• While other users/pages facing similar issues typically received lighter measures (such as post removal or warnings), my account received the harshest measure — immediate permanent suspension.
• The bitBuyer Project posts mainly consisted of open-source software (OSS) design philosophy and technical explanations, without direct financial product promotions or solicitations; exaggerated expressions in fictional character quotes were marked as part of unfinished creative works.

[Reasonable Hypothesis Derived from These Facts]

• The fact that sanctions were imposed without disclosing specific reasons or grounds for the decision, and through a procedure lacking opportunities for rebuttal, cannot rule out that Meta has failed to fully uphold its accountability in applying Community Standards.
• It cannot be ruled out that even a Meta-verified user, who carries a degree of social credibility, was subjected to the same automated flow as regular accounts when imposing the most severe sanction, raising doubts about the consistency of prioritization and hierarchy in policy application.
• The disparity in sanctions compared to other cases and the imposition of the most severe sanction without considering context (such as OSS, technical explanations, and clearly marked creative content) cannot rule out the existence of practices that could be perceived as arbitrary.

[Summarized Key Points]

1. The lack of disclosure of specific reasons and grounds, combined with a procedure that offered no means of rebuttal, suggests a deficiency in accountability.
2. The imposition of the most severe sanction on a Meta-verified user, together with the disparity in sanctions compared to other cases, raises doubts about the consistency of enforcement.
3. An assessment that fails to consider the context of the posts (OSS, technical explanations, explicitly marked creative content) could be perceived as arbitrary.

[Conclusion (Subject to Revision)]

Based on these observed facts, I can reasonably infer that unless Meta provides a clear explanation by August 31, 2025 (JST) regarding the specific reasons, decision-making grounds, and consistency of the applied standards for this measure, the permanent suspension was likely carried out through an inconsistent and potentially arbitrary application of the Community Standards.

This is not merely an isolated case but raises serious doubts about the governance and reliability of policy enforcement across the Meta platform as a whole.

If any factual errors are identified, I will promptly supplement, correct, or update this statement.

Additional Inference 4: The “Non-Denial” Possibility That Meta Has Failed to Fully Uphold Transparency and Accountability

[Observed Facts]

• On July 23, 2025 (JST), my Meta-verified Facebook account was permanently suspended for the vague reason of “violating the Community Standards on Cybersecurity.”
• The notification contained no explanation of the specific violation, the grounds for the decision, the evidence used, or the review process.
• The appeals procedure was limited solely to identity verification (uploading a facial photo) and did not allow for free-text rebuttals or submission of supporting materials.
• The review result was returned in under two hours, stating only “the violation still stands, further review is not possible,” with no opportunity for re-appeal.
• At the time of my initial Meta verification, I had submitted a government-issued photo ID (My Number card) and successfully passed KYC; in contrast, for this suspension appeal, I submitted a close-range selfie taken personally.
• Immediately after I formally reported via Meta’s Help Center a suspected case of unauthorized reproduction and violation of image rights by a large Facebook page with over 120,000 followers, this permanent suspension was enacted — establishing a clear temporal proximity.
• I sent a formal protest letter to Meta requesting an initial response within seven business days and a final response by August 31, 2025 (JST), but no sufficient or specific response has been received to date.
• I was a Meta-verified user, implying that Meta had acknowledged a certain level of trustworthiness in my account.
• While other users/pages facing similar issues typically received lighter measures (such as post removal or warnings), my account received the harshest measure — immediate permanent suspension.
• The bitBuyer Project posts mainly consisted of open-source software (OSS) design philosophy and technical explanations, without direct financial product promotions or solicitations; exaggerated expressions in fictional character quotes were marked as part of unfinished creative works.

[Reasonable Hypothesis Derived from These Facts]

• The fact that sanctions were imposed based only on abstract reasons and that opportunities for rebuttal were excluded cannot rule out that Meta has failed to make sufficient efforts to ensure transparency and accountability in this matter.
• The lack of appropriate disclosure of reasons for imposing the most severe sanction on a Meta-verified user strengthens concerns about insufficient fulfillment of even the minimum level of corporate accountability.
• The absence of an initial response within seven business days to reasonable external inquiries or criticisms cannot rule out that Meta either lacks the willingness to respond or has adopted a strategy of avoiding explanation.

[Summarized Key Points]

1. The presentation of only abstract reasons and the lack of opportunities for rebuttal strongly suggest a deficiency in accountability.
2. The most severe sanction imposed on a Meta-verified user has not been accompanied by an appropriate disclosure of reasons.
3. The absence of an initial response within seven business days has created a situation in which Meta’s commitment to ensuring transparency cannot be confirmed.

[Conclusion (Subject to Revision)]

Based on these observed facts, I can reasonably infer that unless Meta provides a clear explanation by August 31, 2025 (JST) regarding the specific reasons, decision-making grounds, and operational processes for this suspension, there is a high likelihood that Meta lacks the intent to fully uphold its corporate obligations for transparency and accountability.

This issue is directly tied to the credibility of Meta as a company operating a massive platform of international public importance and raises serious doubts about its alignment with the general standards of accountability and transparency expected in many jurisdictions, including OECD member countries.

If any factual errors are identified, I will promptly supplement, correct, or update this statement.

Integrated Inference: A Serious Incident Potentially Arising from the Combination of Procedural Issues in Meta’s Operations and a Lack of Accountability

[Observed Facts]

• On July 23, 2025 (JST), my Meta-verified Facebook account was permanently suspended for the vague reason of “violating the Community Standards on Cybersecurity.”
• The notification contained no explanation of the specific violation, the grounds for the decision, the evidence used, or the review process.
• The appeals procedure was limited solely to identity verification (uploading a facial photo) and did not allow for free-text rebuttals or submission of supporting materials.
• The review result was returned in under two hours, stating only “the violation still stands, further review is not possible,” with no opportunity for re-appeal.
• At the time of my initial Meta verification, I had submitted a government-issued photo ID (My Number card) and successfully passed KYC; in contrast, for this suspension appeal, I submitted a close-range selfie taken personally.
• Immediately after I formally reported via Meta’s Help Center a suspected case of unauthorized reproduction and violation of image rights by a large Facebook page with over 120,000 followers, this permanent suspension was enacted — establishing a clear temporal proximity.
• I sent a formal protest letter to Meta requesting an initial response within seven business days and a final response by August 31, 2025 (JST), but no sufficient or specific response has been received to date.
• I was a Meta-verified user, implying that Meta had acknowledged a certain level of trustworthiness in my account.
• While other users/pages facing similar issues typically received lighter measures (such as post removal or warnings), my account received the harshest measure — immediate permanent suspension.
• The bitBuyer Project posts mainly consisted of open-source software (OSS) design philosophy and technical explanations, without direct financial product promotions or solicitations; exaggerated expressions in fictional character quotes were marked as part of unfinished creative works.

[Reasonable Hypothesis Derived from These Facts]

1. Defects in System Operations and Management
   The provision of only abstract reasons and the use of a non-interactive process that blocks rebuttals and the submission of evidence suggest a careless and insufficiently cautious procedure. Furthermore, the under-two-hour re-review period cannot rule out that substantive re-investigation and evidence examination were inadequate.
2. Overlap of False Third-Party Reports and Meta’s Investigative Shortcomings
   The temporal proximity between my rights-violation report and the immediate permanent suspension cannot rule out that a retaliatory false report was automatically or formally accepted and processed. There is no indication that the veracity of the report was meaningfully verified, raising concerns that even the minimum safeguards failed to function.
3. Inconsistency and Potential Arbitrariness in Policy Enforcement
   The fact that a Meta-verified user, who carries higher social credibility, was subjected to the same automated flow as regular accounts for the most severe sanction raises doubts about the consistency of hierarchy and prioritization in policy application. While similar cases often result in minor measures, only my account was immediately and permanently suspended, suggesting potentially arbitrary enforcement. Posts on the bitBuyer Project primarily consisted of open-source software design philosophies and technical explanations, without direct financial solicitations. Exaggerated expressions were clearly marked as part of unfinished creative works. Evaluating such content as “fraudulent” or “misinformation” reflects a lack of contextual understanding.
4. Deficiencies in Transparency and Accountability
   The specific reasons, grounds, and review process remain undisclosed. No sufficient or specific response has been provided either within the seven-business-day initial response window or the final response deadline of August 31 (JST). This raises serious doubts about Meta’s alignment with the global standards of accountability and transparency expected of a major platform company.

[Conclusion (Subject to Revision)]

In summary, unless Meta provides a sufficient and clear explanation by August 31, 2025 (JST) regarding the specific reasons, decision-making grounds, and operational processes behind this permanent suspension — including the content of the report, logs identifying the reporting party, internal review procedures, and the rationale for the “no further review” decision — I can reasonably infer that this case likely resulted from a combination of:

1. Defects in system operations and management,
2. The overlap of a false third-party report and Meta’s investigative shortcomings,
3. Inconsistency and potential arbitrariness in the application of policies, and
4. Deficiencies in transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, I cannot rule out the non-denial possibility that my prior analyses of Meta’s system behavior on this official site — including inferences and examinations regarding the “black box” elements of the company’s unpublished algorithms — may have been perceived by Meta as an intolerable situation. From this perspective, it is plausible to hypothesize (my view) that Meta may have treated this case as an “opportunity” to impose an excessively severe measure with the intent of curbing my influence and disclosures.

This matter, in my view, constitutes a serious incident that goes beyond an individual rights violation, with potential implications for the international governance credibility of Meta’s Trust & Safety division. Should transparency not be demonstrated, I will consider escalating this matter through the multilingual deployment of bitBuyer Telling (50 countries, 50 cultures, 50 original editions) and filing inquiries or reports with international entities, including the OECD. As a result, Meta’s lack of transparency could be documented internationally, and, in general terms, unresolved concerns regarding transparency could have repercussions on regulatory and evaluative frameworks.

I will promptly supplement, correct, or update this assessment based on Meta’s formal response, disclosure of logs, or corrective measures. Should any factual errors be identified with concrete evidence, I will correct them with acknowledgment. This conclusion does not intend to assert definitive facts but reflects my current opinion based on the facts available as of now.

In my view, I could not help but feel that this ultimately facilitated contact with fraudulent accounts.

On July 23, 2025, my Meta-verified Facebook account was suddenly “permanently suspended.”
The reason? “Violation of Community Standards related to cybersecurity.”
But the notification contained only that single line. Which post? Which action? How exactly did it violate the rules? There was no explanation at all.

The appeals process? It didn’t even include a field to explain the situation in writing — just a checkbox to confirm “I am not a robot” and an upload of my photo.
From what I recall, the result of the re-review came back in less than two hours:
“We have determined that your account still violates our cybersecurity-related Community Standards. This decision cannot be appealed.”
And just like that, the door was closed.

I immediately sent Meta a formal letter of protest, demanding an initial response within seven business days and a final response by August 31, 2025.
My reasoning is simple: this incident directly harms the brand strategy and operations of the open-source project I represent — bitBuyer.
…And now, seven business days have passed. There has been no response.

From this point forward, I will describe facts (e.g., receiving the notification, the timing of the response, the nature of the process) alongside my inferences and impressions.
If Meta provides specific explanations or discloses relevant logs, I will promptly supplement, correct, or update this text.

My “Reasonable Inferences”

1. Unresolved systemic issues?
   Shortly after I reported a large Facebook page with over 120,000 followers for suspected copyright infringement and violations of portrait rights, my account was suspended. This timeline cannot rule out that a false report was filed first, leading to an almost automatic suspension. And this was for a Meta-verified account. Honestly, I expected — and deserved — a more thorough review.
2. Was any real investigation conducted?
   The re-review was completed in less than two hours, with no opportunity to submit a written statement or evidence. This makes it hard not to suspect that no substantive re-investigation or careful review was conducted.
3. Inconsistent policy enforcement?
   In other cases, users only receive content deletions or warnings. Yet my account faced the most severe sanction: immediate permanent suspension. The posts on bitBuyer Project are primarily about open-source software design philosophy and technical explanations, not financial solicitation or fraudulent content. Exaggerated elements in creative content were explicitly labeled as “unfinished works.” This feels like an automated judgment that ignored context.
4. A choice to remain silent
   Meta has provided no specific reasons, nor has it responded to my protest (at least within the seven-business-day timeframe). This “choice not to explain” itself feels like a deliberate statement of intent.

These are the facts I directly observed and recorded, and the inferences I was compelled to draw from them. Next, I will outline what I believe happened in light of this “silence” and the “shadow of automation” — and what I intend to publicly document and report.

Before proceeding, I want to share one personal note:
For a long time, I have engaged with fraudulent accounts contacting me through Messenger and Facebook. I have documented their “scripts,” deconstructed them, and published my findings (all logs and evidence are preserved).

My observations include numerous common scam patterns, such as:

• Pretending to be Meta representatives offering $1 million (#1)
• Claiming to transfer deceased parents’ inheritance to solicit payment information (#2)
• Posing as romantic connections while simultaneously driving users to external links and soliciting funds (#3)
• Impersonating U.S. military personnel or migrants to blend affection with monetary demands (#4)
• Impersonating celebrities to discuss Bitcoin holdings or loans (#5)
• Using identical messages across multiple accounts to make sexual advances and drive users to LINE (#6)
• Posing as Meta “agents” (#7)
• Contacting with templated prize-winning messages (#8)
• Pretending to be surgeons, single mothers, etc., to establish emotional connections (#9)
• Bot-driven rapid-fire messaging (#10)
• Using Traditional Chinese while impersonating U.S. soldiers to lure users to LINE (#11)
• Impersonating Meta employees to demand fees for “prize winnings” (#12)
• Using implausible personal profiles like “From Tokyo, living in Thomasville” (#13)
• Posing as married individuals seeking affairs, then driving users to external sites for payment (#14)
• Mimicking natural conversation while using awkward, non-native Japanese (#15)

My purpose in engaging with these actors has been to use law and policy as tools to disrupt these scripts and mitigate further harm (including publishing high-probability fraudulent LINE IDs — though I no longer do this). I have also faced the reality that over 2,500 of my Facebook followers fit scam-like profiles based on my own classification methods.

And yet, it was my account that was permanently suspended, while these fraudulent accounts continue operating freely. Looking at these facts in isolation, it feels as though I was “facilitated into contact with scammers” by Facebook.

Meta, will you continue to remain silent? Is your platform for the scammers?

Of course, this is my opinion. If Meta discloses logs, provides concrete explanations, and corrects any misunderstandings, I will promptly revise and update this record.

But as things stand, the evidence strongly suggests that Meta’s Trust & Safety division lacks basic safeguards to prevent false reports and abuse, and has failed to fully uphold its accountability obligations. From an international perspective, this could be seen as a serious corporate governance failure. And I still hope Meta can provide the explanations and evidence necessary to prove that assessment wrong.

No Response in Seven Business Days — Therefore, This Is My Declaration

As Meta has failed to respond within seven business days, I hereby declare the following:

1. Public Disclosure: I will make this matter public, recording and publishing both the factual timeline and my opinions (clearly distinguished as such).
2. Multilingual Documentation: Beyond the official bitBuyer Project website, I may also record and present these systemic issues through the multilingual narrative series “bitBuyer Telling”, which will be deployed across 50 countries and 50 cultures, clearly separating facts from opinions and including a policy for corrections and updates.
3. International Inquiries: If transparency and accountability are not demonstrated, I will consider filing inquiries and reports with the OECD, relevant national authorities, and international organizations.
4. Legal Options: I will evaluate, in consultation with experts, the possibility of pursuing legal action concerning the damage this incident has caused to the brand value of the bitBuyer Project.

In Closing

If Meta claims to be “helping people connect,” then I must ask: why was it so effortless to connect me with scammers — yet I was left with no words other than sending a photo of my face?

I will continue to quietly wait for Meta to provide an explanation.
If an explanation is offered, I will amend and update this text.
If logs are disclosed, I will revise my inferences accordingly.
But if the silence continues, then I will continue documenting that very silence as a fact.

This issue goes beyond the suspension of an individual account.
I regard it as a serious incident involving the ethics, transparency, and international credibility of Meta as a corporation.
…And from here, depending on Meta’s response, I will proceed with specific steps for disclosure, reporting, and formal demands for corrective action.