I understand the sentiment. In principle, I agree with conscious use of these tools.
In this specific case, however, it wasn't for general browsing. After living overseas for more than a decade, you realize that, for some people, these platforms function as essential infrastructure. I can't force my old aunt on Signal or Matrix or whatever. It had become the only channel to call my 76yo uncle. Family I'd just reconnected with. This is especially true during a divorce with far away aging family members.
My post is less about my need for Instagram and more about the systemic problem: what recourse does a person have when a company's automated moderation fails and the original reason for the ban is proven invalid? That's the technical/procedural question I'm hoping to find an answer for.
In this specific case, however, it wasn't for general browsing. After living overseas for more than a decade, you realize that, for some people, these platforms function as essential infrastructure. I can't force my old aunt on Signal or Matrix or whatever. It had become the only channel to call my 76yo uncle. Family I'd just reconnected with. This is especially true during a divorce with far away aging family members.
My post is less about my need for Instagram and more about the systemic problem: what recourse does a person have when a company's automated moderation fails and the original reason for the ban is proven invalid? That's the technical/procedural question I'm hoping to find an answer for.