Disabling his account is either a display of creepy dictatorial power or an indication of incompetence and lack of common sense.
Or, the system that shut him down is automated and triggers 99.9% of the time on spam accounts, and the lockout is a totally sensible default.
An automated system that can't distinguish between a very successful application and a spammer doesn't sound particularly sensible to me.
In the Facebook ecosystem, that's often a very fine line.
Then perhaps these kinds of decisions should not be taken by machines.
The email may well have been automatically-generated. Most people whose accounts are suspended have a very hard time getting in touch with a real person even when they follow instructions on the Facebook site.
All of the above. Activists have been dealing with these kinds of issues for a long time. Facebook's processes are haphazard, they make arbitrary decisions without notifying people, their automated filters are prone to misjudgment, and they usually don't react until an issue starts to get significant attention.
That sounds exactly like the major complaints about PayPal.
Yeah really. What a coincidence! Do you think they might have investors in common?