Yes I know why the post was removed, but based on the stated no nudity rule, the post should have been ok.
If we go one stage further and appeal (to the same algorithm). That too will presumably fail.
So what we are left with is a set of rules, and a set of defacto rules, that don't match up. That I wouldn't say is transparency, except in a limited and meaningless sense.
Wikipedia's opening paragraph on transparency:
"Transparency, as used in science, engineering, business, the humanities and in other social contexts, is operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed. Transparency implies openness, communication, and accountability. "[1]
There is neither openness or accountability in my example.
Yes in a narrow sense it is transparent, in the wider (I would say, most important) sense, it isn't.
I mean, you're correct about the fact that putting a human in the loop costs too much at scale, which is why it doesn't happen, and that sucks when you're an edge case that gets shafted. But that tangential to the question of transparency. Even if there were people in the loop, they wouldn't be fully transparent about the actions they take for exactly the reason the parent comment said. It would make it easier for the bad actors trying to exploit the system.