When ignored, it really is no different from a shadow ban.
I think what the grandparent is saying is that those implementations count as prior art and this application should have been rejected. It is ridiculous to even insinuate that the it is possible that thing that I cannot continue doing the thing I have been doing for decades because someone patented it a decade or two after I started doing it.
And when litigation, right or wrong, is won by the deepest pockets (settlement), I imagine this is just one arrow in the quiver of evil FB. WTF else is in there?
Can the Iliad be considered prior art?