There are certain moments in journalism when the facts arrange themselves so neatly that commentary becomes almost unnecessary.
This is one of them.
Truth Social has, for the second time in a matter of days, informed Bureaucracy Times that its bot-mitigation system mistakenly identified our account as a bot and banned it.
For the second time, we have been reinstated.
We would therefore like to announce that we have once again been officially recognized as human.
The Bot That Cried Bot
The sequence began when Truth Social suspended the Bureaucracy Times account. We appealed. Truth Social subsequently restored the account and explained that the suspension had been an error.
“Your account was inadvertently banned due to a bug in our bot mitigation system that mistakenly identified your account as a bot.”
Truth Social Ban Appeals
Fair enough. Software makes mistakes. Automated moderation systems make mistakes. Somewhere inside Truth Social’s machinery, something apparently looked at an independent journalism account posting links to stories about federal bureaucracy and concluded that no actual human being would voluntarily spend this much time doing that.
We can understand the confusion.
So we returned to Truth Social and did what journalists generally do when something peculiar happens: we reported what happened.
We posted Truth Social’s explanation, noted—with perhaps an inadvisable amount of amusement—that its bot detector had mistaken us for a bot, and asked whether anyone else had experienced the same problem.
At 11:52 a.m. on September 7, we posted Truth Social’s explanation. At 11:53 a.m., the account was banned again.
Apparently, discussing the bot that thought we were a bot did not improve our standing with the bot.
Humanity, Recertified
We appealed the second ban.
On September 8, Truth Social’s Ban Appeals team responded:
“Your account was inadvertently banned due to a bug in our bot mitigation system that mistakenly identified your account as a bot. We apologize for the error and have fully reinstated your account.”
Truth Social Ban Appeals, Sept. 8, 2026
If that sounds familiar, it should.
Truth Social has now twice told us that its bot-mitigation system mistook us for a bot. It has twice restored the account. And the messages explaining those reinstatements are sufficiently similar and formulaic to raise another rather obvious question: how much of this process involves a human being?
We do not know.
And that distinction matters. The messages themselves do not establish whether a human moderator reviewed either appeal, whether an automated appeals system reversed an automated enforcement decision, or whether some combination of human and automated review occurred.
So we will not claim that a bot handled our appeals merely because the responses look remarkably robotic.
We will, however, admire the irony.
A Perfectly Bureaucratic Loop
At this point, the known sequence is wonderfully circular.
- Truth Social’s bot-mitigation system identifies Bureaucracy Times as a bot.
- Bureaucracy Times appeals.
- Truth Social says its bot-mitigation system was wrong.
- Bureaucracy Times reports that Truth Social’s bot-mitigation system was wrong.
- Truth Social’s bot-mitigation system apparently identifies Bureaucracy Times as a bot again.
- Bureaucracy Times appeals again.
- Truth Social again says its bot-mitigation system was wrong.
This is, in its own peculiar way, the purest expression of the bureaucracy we cover: a system creates a problem, another part of the system corrects the problem, and then the system recreates the original problem almost immediately.
The only thing missing is a form requiring us to certify under penalty of perjury that we possess a pulse.
The Question Truth Social Has Not Answered
Beneath the comedy is a legitimate platform-accountability question.
When an account appeals an automated enforcement action on Truth Social, does a human moderator review that appeal? Can a successfully appealed account be flagged so that the same automated system does not immediately repeat the same mistake? And when Truth Social tells a user that a “bug” caused a false bot identification, is that determination made by a person, another automated system, or both?
Those questions became considerably more interesting after the same failure happened twice.
We intend to ask them.
In the meantime, Bureaucracy Times is back on Truth Social. Again.
We eagerly await our third certification of humanity.
Editor’s note: This is the third report in an ongoing series. Read the first report: ‘Truth Social Banned a Federal Accountability Outlet. It Won’t Say Why.’ (https://bureaucracy.news/2026/09/04/truth-social-banned-a-federal-accountability-outlet-it-wont-say-why/) and the second: ‘Truth Social Said Its Bot Detector Mistakenly Banned Us. We Posted Their Explanation. It Banned Us Again.’ (https://bureaucracy.news/2026/09/07/truth-social-said-its-bot-detector-mistakenly-banned-us-we-posted-their-explanation-it-banned-us-again/)
Bureaucracy Times 