[dspillett]

Depends in what context you are talking about the animals.

Trade in animals is covered by a number of laws¹ intended to protect them, and fb has a blanket ban on advertising trading animals. This is a perfectly logical thing to declare wrong.

What has happened here, most likely, is that a right thing (selling courses about Python and Pandas, the technical things of that name not the animals) has been misidentified as that wrong thing, by an automated system that doesn't understand that two concepts can have the same names, with no practical way for the affected advertiser to appeal or even query the automated decision.

Basically this is a variant of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem.

--

[1] Morals too, of course, but companies like FB work based on laws/regulations² rather than based on what is considered [im]moral.

[2] or based on working around laws/regulations!

[coding123]

That department should upgrade to a modern LLM which would do a better job than many humans in understanding the context of python and pandas.

[dspillett]

There would still be need for some sort of appeal/correction process, which doesn't seem to exist in a useful state now and would be required no matter what automated system you put in place.

[coding123]

I think if the front line bot was an LLM, rather than what is probably regex, they would probably have more true positives and less false positives that would potentially allow them to have a real person handling the exceptions - then train the LLM on the exception for the next release.