Facebook Proves Maddening Once More

Yet again, Facebook has taken down one of my posts for no rational reason.

I saw the following post on my news feed:

I was attracted to this post because (1) I am interested in railroads, and (2) the fires in Ontario Province, Canada, have been affecting air quality here in Ontario County, New York, U.S.A. I thought it was reasonable to repost this story for the benefit of Facebook friends, particularly those who live in or near Clifton Springs.

I posted the original URL directly from the Trains Web site with the comment:

Smoke from Ontario fires continue to darken skies in Clifton Springs.

Almost immediately—I’m sure no human was involved—I was informed that my post had been deleted because my post “goes against our Community Standards on spam.” In particular, I was told:

The post may use misleading links or content to trick people to visit, or stay on a website.

I was not trying to trick anyone. I immediately challenged the ruling, but I could only check boxes to describe my position. I could not write an actual defense. Facebook provided the following:

Seeking more information, I thought I should see the rule that was supposedly being invoked. I then saw this:

If my post was spam, why wasn’t the original post from Trains spam? I frequently post links to my Web site and blog or to news reports from The New York Times, NPR, or other news organizations. I have no idea why my post was deemed objectionable. I was provided with this unhelpful information:

Facebook later offered this threat after telling me that my post was not being restored:

If you have a high tolerance for bureaucratic self-righteousness, you can read the full (I think) Facebook policy on spam here.

I use Facebook because it’s useful, but, in so many respects, it is maddening. Some features are poorly chosen, and the platform keeps changing how things work, seldom for the better. (The latest general annoyance is the appearance of ads in the middle of even relatively short reels.)

You can read some of my previous complaints about Facebook here.

Two Language Observations

I listen to NPR a lot. I have come to expect mostly well-spoken English on the network. Two pronunciations have surprised me of late, however. I have heard these on NPR and elsewhere.

First, there is the word missile. The word came up a lot in coverage of the Trump-Netanyahu war against Iran. I have always heard this word pronounced as ˈmi‑səl, but I was repeatedly hearing it pronounced ˈmi‑sīl. When I looked the word up in the dictionary, I was surprised to learn that this latter pronunciation is the usual British one.  As it happens, many of the reporters I was listening to on NPR were, in fact, British. Mystery solved!

Another oddity I have noticed lately is rather more annoying. It involves the simple word a. Almost always, I expect this word to be pronounced as ə—or if you prefer, uh—as in a beautiful beach. This is the usual adjectival use of the word. Normally, it is only pronounced ˈā when the word is used as a noun (i.e., to refer to the letter A) or, more rarely, as an adjective for emphasis on the singularity of the thing it modifies (e.g., ā very big deal). Recently, however—I heard an example of this usage on the ABC news tonight—a long A is being used in phrases like ā mix of sun and clouds. My guess is that announcers are trying too hard to enunciate, even when a natural pronunciation is actually called for and a long A pronunciation simply seems stilted.

Autographs

I am not a collector of autographs. The other day, however, I was reminded that I have accumulated a few over the years.

I was listening to an LP of Bach preludes and fugues yesterday. The organist was Marie-Claire Alain on a two-disc album. (I own recordings of all the Bach organ works played by Alain.) As I removed the first disc to play it, a program from a concert I attended nearly half a century ago fell out. Owning so many recordings by Alain, I was delighted to hear her play in person, and I had her sign my program, which I had saved in the album I was playing. (See the program at the left.)

I have never gotten an autograph from a politician or any other non-musician, but I have two other signatures from musicians. 

I have heard Judy Collins in concert two or three times. Before one of these, I bought one of her LPs at a record store—are you old enough, dear reader, to know about record stores?—where she was autographing purchases. She signed and personalized my album.

I have only one other musician’s autograph, that of Vladimir Ashkenazy. I had become a passionate fan of Sergei Prokofiev’s music after borrowing from the New Orleans Public Library a recording of his Second Piano Concerto, played by Malcolm Frager. While attending the University of Chicago, a friend who knew of my Prokofiev passion told me that Ashkenazy was playing the concerto at Orchestra Hall. I managed to obtain a seat at the concert in the nosebleed section. It was the most exciting concert I have ever attended; I was on the edge of my seat—quite literally—throughout the entire concerto. I was actually a bit tired from the tension when it was all over! Several years later, I got to hear Askenazy in Honolulu. I obtained his autograph, but I really wanted to see him to tell him how exciting I found that Chicago concert and to thank him for the experience.

I have since heard other pianists play the Prokofiev Second Piano Concerto. The piece is always exciting, but no performance has had the emotional power of that Chicago performance by Vladimir Ashkenazy.

Do you, dear reader, collect autographs? Whose signature has been most meaningful to you? Do you have autographs from people who are not musicians?