Meta Was Never Merely a Company with a Culture of Concealment. It Is a Company That Tries to Make Inconvenient Facts Cease to Exist.

#HomoDeusSaid

Meta Permanently Suspends a Verified Account Without Warning: An Official Statement from the bitBuyer Project

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:

Identified content (URL, paragraph number, quoted lines, etc.)
Legal or contractual basis (e.g., defamation, relevant Terms of Service provision)
Classification as a factual assertion or opinion/commentary (see the next section of this document)
Reason why alternatives to removal (annotation or correction) are insufficient
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).

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 19, 2026 (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:

Identification of the Content in Question
URL, paragraph number, quoted lines, or clearly defined text segments.
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.
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.
Scope and Reason for the Requested Action
Explain whether full removal is necessary or whether annotation/correction would suffice, and why.
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:

Identified content (URL, paragraph number, or quoted portion).
Legal or contractual basis.
Classification as fact or opinion/commentary, with argumentation.
Justification for why removal, rather than annotation or correction, is necessary.
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

The phrase “a culture of concealment” may be too mild to describe the nature of Meta as a corporation.

Concealment means recognizing that a fact exists and then covering it up so that outsiders cannot see it.

What has repeatedly emerged from Meta’s systems and conduct, however, is a different kind of process.

Meta makes an erroneous decision.

It inflicts serious harm on a user.

Later, it silently reverses only the outcome produced by that decision.

It does not acknowledge the error.

It does not explain why the decision was reversed.

It does not apologize.

It does not present any measures to prevent recurrence.

Ultimately, it simply resumes ordinary service and billing as though nothing had ever happened.

Meta does not merely hide facts that are inconvenient to it.

It prevents those facts from becoming matters the company is required to answer for, correct, or preserve in its own records.

This is not concealment.

It is the corporate erasure of factual existence.

On July 23, 2025, Meta “permanently suspended” my Facebook account.

The screen stated, in substance, that my account had been found to remain in violation of Meta’s Community Standards concerning cybersecurity and that I could no longer request a review.

I had engaged in no conduct that posed a cybersecurity threat.

The appeal procedure made available to me did not allow me to respond to any specific alleged violation. In practical terms, it was limited to identity verification.

I therefore prepared a formal protest letter addressed to the Legal Department of Meta Platforms, Inc.

In that letter, I demanded a review by a senior officer, written disclosure of the specific grounds for the suspension, and restoration of my account.

Meta provided no adequate explanation.

Then, in early September 2025, my account suddenly returned.

There was no notification.

There was no statement saying, “The permanent suspension imposed on your account was an error.”

There was no apology.

There was no correction notice.

There was no explanation of the suspension period and no proposal for preventing the same failure from recurring.

Only the account returned, as though nothing had happened.

Apparently, the useful life of the word “permanent” at Meta is approximately six weeks.

The permanent suspension of my account ended.

The permanent suspension of accountability remained in effect.

That was not a correction.

A correction requires an organization to recognize that its original decision was wrong, explain why it changed that decision, and, where necessary, address the resulting harm and measures to prevent recurrence.

What Meta did was silently remove the erroneous outcome while leaving the record of the error, and the burden of preserving that record, entirely with the user.

From the user’s perspective, the account returned.

From Meta’s perspective, the incident disappeared.

Under this structure, the responsibility for preserving evidence of the company’s error is transferred to the user.

The user must save the suspension screen.

The user must preserve the notices.

The user must document the duration of the suspension.

The user must prepare the protest letter.

The user must record that no explanation was provided after restoration.

The corporation explains nothing.

Only the user maintains the record.

The corporation then exploits that asymmetry and treats the passage of time as resolution.

In July 2026, as the first anniversary of the wrongful permanent suspension approached, I republished the record.

First, I published a Homo Deus post documenting the wrongful permanent suspension and the silent restoration without notice, together with the URL of the protest-letter PDF I had archived on GitHub the previous year.

Approximately one hour later, I reshared a series of photo-card posts carrying the same PDF URL.

I also reshared a Reel containing four iPhone screenshots from the time Meta wrongfully suspended my account.

Approximately one hour after that, I reshared the official protest statement issued by the bitBuyer Project the previous year in Japanese, English, and Spanish.

Then, about an hour later, the following message appeared when I attempted to access Facebook through a web browser:

“Your account is temporarily unavailable. Your account is currently unavailable due to a site issue. We expect this to be resolved shortly. Please try again later.”

The message later became more specific:

“Feature Temporarily Unavailable. You’re temporarily blocked from using this feature because you were using it too quickly.”

The volume of activity involved is important.

I sometimes publish 24 posts between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., schedule one Reel for 11:00 p.m., and then publish another 24 posts between midnight and 3:00 a.m.

That normal operating pattern consists of 48 posts and one scheduled Reel.

This time, the restriction occurred approximately three-quarters of the way through the first 24-post set.

That was around the eighteenth post.

It was not three-quarters of the full 48-post routine.

Measured against the full 48-post routine, it was only three-eighths, or 37.5 percent.

Under ordinary conditions, I would still have published another six posts, scheduled one Reel, and published another 24 posts after midnight.

Measured against my normal operating pattern, the restriction occurred at a remarkably early point.

A simple claim that I had posted more than usual and reached an ordinary posting limit is therefore inconsistent with my own operating history.

The system’s normal speedometer had not detected its usual upper limit.

Some other detection condition may have applied the emergency brake at a point that would ordinarily still be considered the opening stage of the operation.

Of course, this sequence of events alone does not establish that a Meta employee personally reviewed the content and deliberately retaliated against me.

This article makes no such unproven allegation.

The restriction may have been triggered by repeated use of the same URL, a sequence of similar posts, the sharing of external links, the state of the account, the method used to publish the posts, a combination of automated risk signals, or an ordinary system failure.

The confirmed facts nevertheless remain.

The same account ordinarily processes 48 posts and one scheduled Reel.

This time, the restriction occurred at approximately 18 posts.

The major difference from ordinary activity was that I was publishing, in sequence, a PDF documenting Meta’s erroneous decision, screenshots from the wrongful suspension, and formal statements protesting Meta’s conduct.

Meta’s explanation that I was “using this feature too quickly” cannot be accounted for by posting volume alone.

Whether the restriction resulted from deliberate human action, automated classification, or a technical malfunction cannot be established unless Meta discloses the relevant internal state.

The central problem is not merely that the cause remains unknown.

The central problem is that the channel through which the cause should have been clarified did not function.

During the restriction, the iPhone app remained usable on the surface.

I therefore synced to my iPhone the screenshot showing that Facebook was unavailable in the browser and posted it to Facebook through the Facebook app, which was still operating normally.

I was able to use Facebook to publish evidence that Facebook could not be used.

When an institution begins drawing its own satirical portrait, the writer’s workload drops sharply.

The effects of the incident, however, were not limited to the browser.

On the previous day, I had scheduled a separate Reel to be published at 6:00 p.m. on July 19, 2026.

That Reel was not published at its scheduled time.

It was published at 6:23 p.m., the same time at which access to Facebook through the browser was restored.

The browser recovered at 6:23 p.m.

The scheduled Reel that had remained pending was also published at 6:23 p.m.

From the first time I observed the restriction until recovery, the restriction lasted approximately one hour and twenty-three minutes.

That duration is based on the time between my first observation of the abnormal condition and the observed recovery. Meta did not disclose the precise time at which the internal restriction began.

What can be established is that the incident cannot be reduced to a temporary display problem affecting only the browser.

The iPhone app remained operable at the interface level.

The scheduled publication process, however, did not execute at the specified time.

The delayed Reel was then released at the same time the browser restriction ended.

This strongly suggests that a shared restriction state may have affected not only one browser-based access path, but also at least the scheduled-publication process.

The app opened.

The posting interface opened.

Inside the account, however, a scheduled publication process remained suspended.

The apparent availability of the interface did not match the availability of the underlying processes.

The fact that the iPhone app appeared to work therefore does not establish that every function associated with the account was operating normally.

The front end remained accessible.

Part of the back end may have been placed on hold.

Meta stated that I had been “using this feature too quickly.”

Yet a scheduled post configured the previous day and intended to execute automatically at 6:00 p.m. was also forced to wait for twenty-three minutes.

Apparently, because the user was moving too quickly, yesterday’s scheduled post also had to slow down.

Meta’s concept of time is philosophical.

The black comedy did not end there.

Approximately 50 minutes after I published the browser-restriction screenshot on Facebook, I checked the post’s insights.

The view count was zero.

Given the size of my account and its ordinary initial reach, zero views after 50 minutes was highly unusual.

The post itself existed.

It was visible to me as the person who published it.

There was no indication that it had been deleted.

Yet the view count remained zero.

Was the post not being distributed to other users?

Had the publication process not been completed?

Were the insights failing to record views correctly?

Had the post entered some form of review or pending state?

Meta provided no explanation, so the precise internal state could not be determined.

A view count of zero, standing alone, does not prove that Meta deliberately restricted distribution.

Whatever the cause, however, the condition was not normal.

The post existed.

It was visible to its author.

Yet the metric indicating whether it had reached anyone else remained at zero.

It was Facebook governed by quantum mechanics.

The post existed as long as its original observer could see it.

At the point where it should have been distributed to other observers, its existence could no longer be confirmed.

I then attempted to report the problem through the live support included with my current Meta Verified Plus subscription.

I tapped “Get Support.”

The screen closed.

I could not connect to the support interface.

Meta Verified Plus is a paid service.

Part of its perceived value is that it provides identity-verified users with enhanced support and protection.

At the exact moment when that support was needed, however, the entrance labeled “Get Support” failed to function.

The billing function existed.

The verification subscription remained active.

The feature-restriction screen appeared correctly.

The insights page displayed a view count of zero.

Only the support screen, through which the problem could have been reported, closed the moment it was tapped.

Meta Verified Plus may be a premium service that allows paying users to watch the entrance to customer support disappear from a closer seat than ordinary users.

Meta’s billing system operates with the precision of an atomic clock.

Its accountability is as flexible as fog.

In Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari described a future in which human beings delegate judgment to algorithms and eventually lose the ability to understand the reasons behind those algorithms’ decisions.

Meta has implemented that future ahead of schedule and without an instruction manual.

The algorithm decides what constitutes a violation.

The algorithm decides what “too quickly” means.

The algorithm decides which functions to suspend.

The algorithm decides when a scheduled post will be published.

The algorithm decides how far a post will be distributed.

Then, when the user attempts to ask why, the support screen itself closes.

This is not merely silence.

It is silence implemented as a user interface.

Michel Foucault examined how power determines what is recorded and what becomes accepted as knowledge.

Meta has moved one step further.

Through display and non-display, distribution and non-distribution, recording and non-recording, the platform attempts to determine what will count as an event that actually occurred.

A wrongful permanent suspension disappears from the company’s official reality through an unexplained restoration.

A post with zero views remains visible on the author’s screen while its social reach cannot be confirmed.

Support exists contractually but disappears as a functioning service at the moment it is needed.

A scheduled post that was not published on time suddenly begins moving when the restriction ends.

All of these events share the same structure.

They exist in form but not in substance.

The account was restored.

Therefore, the wrongful permanent suspension no longer constitutes a problem.

The post was created.

Therefore, no distribution problem exists.

The support button appeared.

Therefore, support exists.

The scheduled Reel was eventually published.

Therefore, the twenty-three-minute delay was not a problem.

Under this logic, as long as the outer shell of an institution remains visible, whether its internal functions actually worked becomes irrelevant.

This is not merely a lack of transparency.

It is a condition in which a corporation claims exclusive authority to define reality.

I am not alleging that individual Meta employees acted with malicious intent.

Nor am I alleging that this temporary restriction was deliberate human retaliation.

The problem is that even without individual malice, an organizational and technical structure exists through which facts inconvenient to the corporation can disappear from the official record.

The party responsible for the erroneous decision is not identified.

The party responsible for reversing it is not identified.

The reason for the reversal is not explained.

The specific condition that triggered the restriction is not disclosed.

The delay in the scheduled publication is not explained.

The zero-view count is not explained.

The failure of paid support is not explained.

Unless the user independently preserves the record, the event itself can be treated as though it never occurred.

The phrase “a culture of concealment” is not sufficient to describe this.

Concealment presupposes that the concealed matter continues to exist internally as an acknowledged fact.

What Meta’s conduct reveals is a refusal to convert inconvenient events into facts that require a corporate response.

An inconvenient event is not converted into a correction record.

Harm suffered by the user is not converted into a corporate liability matter.

A user’s protest is not converted into a question requiring an answer.

A feature restriction is not converted into a specific explanation of the condition that triggered it.

A delayed scheduled post is not converted into an incident record.

An inaccessible paid-support function is not converted into a possible failure to provide a contracted service.

Then, once enough time has passed, the problem is treated as though it dissolved on its own.

Meta was never merely a company with a culture of concealment.

It is a company that tries to make inconvenient facts cease to exist.

Facts, however, do not exist solely within Meta’s user interface.

The permanent-suspension screen from July 23, 2025, has been preserved.

The protest letter has been archived as a PDF on GitHub.

The unexplained restoration in early September 2025 has been documented.

The posting times, published content, browser-restriction screens, zero-view insights, and the failure of the Meta Verified Plus support interface on July 19, 2026, have all been documented.

It has been documented that the Reel scheduled for 6:00 p.m. was not published at that time.

It has been documented that browser access returned at 6:23 p.m.

It has been documented that the scheduled Reel was published at the same time, 6:23 p.m.

It has been documented that the observed restriction lasted approximately one hour and twenty-three minutes.

Meta may decide what it displays or does not display within its own services.

It cannot decide whether these events existed in history.

Last year, Meta made the account disappear.

It later restored the account without explaining that the suspension had occurred.

This year, I republished the record of that event.

A feature restriction then occurred at approximately 37.5 percent of my ordinary posting volume.

Browser access disappeared.

A scheduled Reel was not published at its scheduled time.

The post documenting the restriction showed zero views.

The Meta Verified Plus support entrance closed when tapped.

Then, at 6:23 p.m., browser access returned and the scheduled Reel that had been delayed for twenty-three minutes was released at the same time.

Last year, the account disappeared.

This year, the browser, the audience, scheduled publication, and support disappeared in sequence.

At least the product philosophy is consistent.

Erroneous decisions are temporary.

Accountability remains permanently suspended.

Scheduled posts wait until the restriction ends.

The support screen disappears instantly.

And the Meta Verified Plus billing system continues to operate normally today.