Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians
reuters.com
reuters.com
[0] https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-ba...
I think you meant "borders".
It's just... They wanted to control who was permitted to express nationalist sentiment, who were acceptable targets of "hate", and who was allowed to own guns.
This is perfectly internally consistent.
Nazis can be accepted while fighting a bigger enemy without having to accept them when the enemy is defeated.
But I think Schlock Mercenary has a better take on this: "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more; no less."
"Nazis who travel to Ukraine to fight Russians are less bad people doing morally and ethically ambiguous things. Once they leave Ukraine, the actions they performed involving Russians are both unethical (because they willingly travelled there to murder conscripted teenagers) and ethical (because they willingly travelled there, presumably to defend the sovereignty of a nation they have tenuous cultural links with)"
Just wait 'til the Ukrainian Foreign Legion starts to be accused of things like massacres (whether legitimate or false reports for propaganda), then guys who were marching in BLM counter protests who went to Ukraine (again, running with the bad nazis doing good things) will have their social media histories paraded about to defame the entire foreign legion.
I wouldn't be comfortable working with a Nazi on a line in a kitchen, just as I'm sure they'd say the same about me, but if Russia invaded here, I'd be quite comfortable "walking with him to the end of the bridge," as the other poster said. Deal with the day-to-day bologna after you've dealt with the once-in-a-century bologna.
For companies like Facebook and Instagram, outrage sells; especially during a war. So why not squeeze out extra ads while they are at it?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukrainian-jews-push-back-again...
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rights-groups-demand-isr...
As for the "orthodox jews fighting alongside nazis", that is just an unfounded claim, without any evidence other than double hearsay in a third-rate newspaper.
Orthodox jews often don't serve even in Israel (inb4: yes, yes, ulta-orthodox, etc etc, but still, and yeshiva students are still exempt).
I'd like to see stronger evidence than hearsay for this extraordinary claim, does it exist?
What you've just discovered is that a unified policy across the entire world isn't actually the right policy. In one country you may want to ban some stuff you wouldn't ban in another one.
That is certainly true. There are many examples of that. Israel provided weapons and advisers to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. They even bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor for them. [1] A more widely known example is the alliance between US and the Soviets during the WW2.
> What you've just discovered is that a unified policy across the entire world isn't actually the right policy.
I disagree with that. The ideal "public square" platforms should be neutral. The best policy (which I think will work in almost all cases for general platforms like FB) is to stick to supporting free expression as much as the law permits, don't manipulate people's feeds, and develop tools to let people filter out the content they don't want to see.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Iran–...
And even then, I'm sure they have a court process to determine who's guilty of "hate speech" (or thoughtcrime or whatever), and FB is capable of challenging the cases or complying with the rulings for French residents. I assume blanket prior restraint is frowned upon in freer countries of the world.
There are efforts to pass Draconian laws to limit free expression online though [1].
[1]: e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/world/europe/france-inter...
https://www.newsweek.com/nato-says-it-didnt-notice-ukraine-s...
Fuck the russian government and their war of aggression, unequivocally. Ive lost a distant friend in syria during The russian government's intervention there, and some of my current refugee friends lost their homes to their bombs. So yes I have no love for putins regime.
But can we please stop making excuses for literal nazis ? It's so weird to basically normalize or even encourage such groups because you don't want to agree with anything russia says. Those groups have been growing for the past 2 weeks because of that completely passive attitude where no one wants to be criticizing "our team". They can openly wear insignia designed by Himmler in front of cameras and still be praised by NATO. I think we should realize that this is not a marvel movie with a clear good vs bad plot. So there's nothing wrong with admitting there is a huge far right problem and still be against the invasion. The "good side" can be criticized without support the "evil side"
For the past few years I've been hearing that we can focus on more than a single issue at the time, so why not do that? Because wow this completely insane 180° on far right groups in a mere 2 weeks really really make the craze around anti fascism and nazism accusations in the past 5 years look like complete poltical theater. At this point I won't even be surprised if we start justifying actual war crimes if the Good side does it.
Do I like nazis? No. Do I associate with them? No. If working together with one is how I stop some jackass from killing us both, am I going to do it? Sure as hell yes.
Arming literal nazis with weapons and letting them loose in a lawless context is a criminally stupid thing to do. These guys have no problem harming civilians or anyone who they feel like, that’s what makes them bad guys.
By not trying to root them out now they will inexorably take over whatever will be left of ukraine. That's almost always what happens with radical armed elements, and as I said they are getting way more comfortable with not even hiding anymore. I can't think of any example where fighting side by side with radical extremists didn't end up backfiring. And beyond that I mean if the UA government can't even get their soldiers to not wear black sun pins openly and openly & explicitly promotes azov on social media, that really does not sound like they are even reluctant to have them on their side.
It's a war and I totally get that it's dirty and that you can't pick and chose your allies everytime. But nazis are an easy line to draw.
A month ago all the alleged war criminals were sitting in jails (convicted ones are still incarcerated). This doesn't equal to rehabilitation.
Fully aware of this, thing is, given their circumstances, I can't really give half a shit. It's amazing easy to wax lyrical about "morality" when you've got the safety guarantee of the most powerful military on the face of the earth. A bit harder when they're literally dropping shells on your head and driving tanks into your cities. I cannot, and will not judge them for compromising when facing a literally existential threat.
Can't exactly get anywhere else when you're just a Russian puppet government. Historically speaking, that's bringing a hell lot worse of a future to anyone in the region than the Azov ever could.
Moreover, when the US went to Afghanistan, I certainly didn't judge Al Qaeda for using "terrorist" tactics like IEDs, or non-uniformed combat, in violation of the Geneva convention. They could have gone with honourable conventional warfare. Then they'd be honorable corpses relatively quickly.
In the end, when war comes, compromise is inevitable. You might regret the consequences down the line, but without that compromise to begin with, you might not have had that future.
But I think that's besides the point. You'd be a minority in Russia too if you opposed the war in the Ukraine right now.
I strongly dislike the lens of morality here, because especially in this case, its coming from those who are insulated from the... Extenuating circumstances the Ukrainians find themselves in.
Furthermore I belive that most would do the same given similar circumstances. Historically speaking, it wasn't THAT long ago that the West aligned with the rather brutal Soviets to defeat their nazi greater enemy.
I can say my perspective has changed a little bit on the subject.
The violent phase of the Maiden square riots looked like postapocalyptic neonazi live action roleplaying. Clear nazi esthetics. I guess many of them were to, in hindsight.
It is strange becouse I guess the Ukraine gov. does not need the Azov batallion anymore. They probably can't get rid of them (easely) even if they wanted.
I understand that the gov. can't disband them now since they will just disobey orders and there is no resources to arrest them, but there was plenty of time before that.
Using more or less neonazis as a separate unit is just begging for problems, even if you are fighting separatist militia. Thinking about it, it is total madness. There is a insane internal security risk having them in a unit.
That's why if you support ukraine, making excuses instead of wanting them gone is just playing right in the hands of russian propaganda. The more those groups grow in influence (like they have been doing since the start of the invasion), the more it's going to be hard to deny for western powers by just claiming it's a Russian red hereing.
Well said. When Nazi Germany occupied Denmark it was a far-right conservative Danish resistance movement that helped Danish Jews flee to Sweden.
The other kind of hate that gets banned brings no revenue and upsets the core audience by the means of PR damage of the platform.
While Russians are actually committing was crimes saying Ukrainian nation is not a real one.
Nazism is evolving like everything else, and the new nazi symbol is Z.
Can you imagine that some techies in California start deciding which people are to be attacked in your country or by your country? It's also probably not techies that are deciding that but that's not the point.
That's such a nation security threat that no country with sane government can afford to allow. Wars, genocides can not only be facilitated but also initiated and commanded by these social media.
And considering all the Machiavellian thinking going on, you can actually expect things to be done. French wine is inconvenience for the Californian farmers maybe? The French lately aren't really that active with ad buys anyway, why not design timelines to induce social unrest in France giving a kick to the American winemakers?
It is known that Facebook studied manipulation of emotions through curation of the user timelines[0].
Also, isn't that against Apple's AppStore guidelines? Apple should remove Instagram and Facebook from the AppStore immediately.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...
(God I hate that I actually started to use West as a political concept now ...)
"We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians,” Meta said in a statement."
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/11/facebook-...
This article from Reuters is at best clickbait, and at worse Russian pro-war propeganda. People are eating this stuff up because they have a hate-boner for progressives, wokeism, and Facebook. If this confirms your biases too well, it might be a good idea to cross-examine.
Edit: When Meta actually allows calls for violence against Russian civilisans, I will be the first to complain. After all, I am Russian by blood.
But yeah I'm sure Meta will be able to verify the military status of everyone that's being threatened or mobbed on Facebook.
You're straw-manning my argument. It's pretty obvious when someone says, 'death to the Russian invaders' that they mean Russian soldiers or Russians, specifically in the context of invading.
Also this change is only for the regions close to Ukraine. I personally would feel strongly if my neighbouring countries started getting invaded for no reason as well. If Meta don't relax the rules, it's likely they'll have to ban a lot of regular people from those countries.
Russia invaded a democracy. People nearby are going to be affected by it personally. They are going to have very strong emotions about it. They should be allowed to vent those emotions online without worrying about getting censored or banned for it.
They define credible as: having two "indicators of credibility", such as location or method. That is a considerably higher bar than for any other group. And that's referring to civilians, not soldiers.
In a separate, internal memo, they explicitly say that hate speech and violent speech against Russian civilians is allowed "if the context is the Russian invasion". That's sufficiently vague that the policy allows for dehumanization.
You're right to be concerned about dehumanisation, and to raise questions about Meta's ability to manage it.
However, when you consider that they are only allowing hate speech for the region affected by Russia's war, you'll realise that most of the people venting will either be personally affected or know someone who is.
I have to ask; in what way do you think someone could call for the death of Russian civilisans specifically in the context of the Russian invasion? I'm struggling to think of an example to support your argument. Perhaps you will provide one?
Yeah, those examples are the easy ones. What about "we should genocide russians"? Where does that lie on your spectrum? Should facebook be allowing such speech?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex...
> Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Your hypothetical isn’t included in any of the current exemptions to free speech protection.
>We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement.
> "We still won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement."
That's a false dichotomy. There's room for reasonable discussion and moderate legislation in between that 100% and 0% control.
Is it O.K. for Facebook to allow call for violence against Americans and the British? Should Facebook provide secure channel for the organisation of the assassination of T. Blair?
Zuckerberg moved by the struggle of the Palestinians, starts allowing Hamas to organize attacks through E2E encrypted channel on Israeli soldiers and politicians. Maybe when he is on it, should also provide them with historical location data of the person of interest? Is that alright?
I believe a zero tolerance policy on incitement to violence is the only tenable approach. No matter the cause. Replace "Russian" with "US" and you are on CIA's shitlist.
Actual planning of armed resistance should not be done on Facebook or Twitter anyway.
It's easy to say that from the safety of your nuclear armed country. We in eastern Europe have to do what we can.
> apply to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine
Facebook is just recognizing the facts on the ground.
Russians are murdering civilians. How can you stop them without killing them?
Of course, the face was not his, but he'd become accustomed to the responsive animations throughout a lifetime of shaving.
"You should probably nix some of those stray hairs and sharpen the beard shape", said the mirror.
Jake thought he was going to go for something a little different this time, but if that's what the mirror recommended, that's the result it was going to get.
"Make sure you turn on your minute-by-minute version updates in your BrainLink for The New York Times to get the best and unbiased news on Russian Aggression."
This slightly perplexed Jake. Last night he was thinking about increasing the feed parameter in his BrainLink for The Washington Post instead of The New York Times, but maybe BrainLink had a new deal with the latter.
Jake was almost done with his face when the mirror issued another transient directive.
"You want to kill some Russians today. Meet at these coordinates to sync with the rest of your Circle."
Jake took some surprise to this. He had met with his Circle frequently to do Collaborations before, but usually it only involved suppressing the underclasses. It was probably just a bug. Probably.
Still, it couldn't hurt to check it out. Jake followed the voice in his head and met with his Circle that day.
If there was a widespread negative reaction to what they are doing in the west (or amongst their target audience)I’m sure they’d quickly change their policy.
Russian's are humans too and deserve as much respect and consideration as every other nationality.
Remember, next time your race / religion / sexual orientation/ nationality might be the one being demonised, simply because someone powerful can make money out of having the masses hate you.
Resist the urge to give into mindless hatred and jingoism.
Russian support for the war in Ukraine is a whole lot more commin than you think.
The vast majority of Russians support the war.
I don’t think any Russians who have declared their opposition to their current government are explicitly targeted. And it’s doubtful that most western people could easily tell a Russian and an Ukrainian apart. So I fail to see the ethnic/racial component here and I think it’s perfectly legitimate to discriminate people based on their political views in certain cases (supporting an unprovoked war of aggression by a less democratic country against a more democratic one (however flawed) is definitely one of them).
If you equate the Russian people and the Russian government with all of it’s supporters (explicit and implicit ones) that’s on you..
None of these things — least of all sanctions — would be allowed against their citizens.
Let’s not forget that the country one lives in is the least likely to show its atrocities. So let’s just accept it — geopolitics ain’t fair.
Therefore I have always been bothered by appeals to some sort of sense of decency in people by various groups being attacked, that are themselves at the same time unapologetically biased and unmoved by the same appeals by other weaker groups. (And yes this most definitely includes Russians.)
Not all Russians. Many are pretty much moved to the point of going out and protesting knowing that they would be arrested.
Not necessarily saying they would. I don't know enough. But they certainly have a lot less conflict of interest.
So yes, it is not a good reason.
Checks outside. No, WW3 definitely isn't already happening.
> with no warmongering dictators
So, once Putin is dealt with, you're headed off to depose the Saudi and Emirati regimes?
I asked my relatives to show me outside and it certainly does look like WW3 in Kyiv and Kharkiv.
So, the Saudis haven't been bombing Yemen since 2015? I mean it's only a conflict that resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people. One would think that would cause more outrage.
> it certainly does look like WW3 in Kyiv and Kharkiv.
But somehow it wasn't WW3 when it happened to Herat or Aleppo or Halabja or Hargeisa or Burao or Grozny.
It's almost as if an isolated conflict and a world war are different.
So in retrospect saying “it literally triggered WW2” provides zero informational context as to the situation as it is currently happening.
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Which it did.
While the British assurance to Poland was:
> ...in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power.
That isn't remotely the same language.
The West is refusing to escalate the conflict which might trigger a world war. It isn't a world war yet and there is no appetite in the West for one.
Yes, the invasion of Ukraine. Have you not heard?
Its not a misnomer at all - it is exactly what it says it is - might not be a good idea, but calling it a 'no-fly zone' is completely accurate.
Not really. Response to any Russian aircraft shot down would be sending a bunch of rockets to the place from where the aircraft was shot down; whether the destination is NATO or not.
From there, it would escalate quickly. That's why NATO generals and saner politicians are not enthusiastic about it.
TL;DR: trying to enforce no-fly zone would hurt. Too much to be worth it.
And, asserting NATO air dominance in Ukraine is easy and guaranteed to succeed with de minimis cost (in lives and/or military equipment). Whereas creating land dominance with tanks is another matter.
A no-fly zone is an easy win for NATO and would make Ukrainian civilians safe from aerial bombardment.
NATO protecting Ukraine would not trigger anything.
Doing this feeds the narrative from Putin that NATO is an aggressive force and it would also go against what NATO is, a defensive alliance.
"The teacher punishing the bully feeds the bully's narrative that school is unfair."
"Feeding a narrative" is never a reason to not do the right thing.
I think this is a sensitive area where acting like there is any certainty is dangerous. I can't agree with your assumptions about 2nd order and 3rd order effects because there are too many known and unknown variables to consider.
This is not true. No nuclear powers should engage in direct wars, I'm not a fan of proxy wars either but they are safer than direct conflicts which can easily escalate.
We have never had a world war between nuclear armed states and we should avoid the potential at all costs.
Iraq has been invaded for a lot less; Kuwait population back then was 1/20 than current Ukraine, but Saddam never had nukes (as any other WMDs, but I digress). So what happens if say 3 years from now Russia decides to invade an EU or NATO country? Will it make any difference that the invaded country is part of the EU or NATO? They still have nukes, so what would be the western response? Will the nuclear deterrent magically disappear because of a NATO or EU stamp somewhere? That is not a trivial issue; ignoring the nuclear threat is for sure the safest way, but can create a nasty precedent in which every nation with nuclear weapons could be entitled to do what they want if they become rogue as Russia is today.
Whereas, right now, we're simply waiting for a bomb to mistakenly land on the wrong side of a border. No thought, no intention, no authorization...just one of those things that happen during war. I think this is a much more likely outcome.
Putin did not sign for no flying zone. For him it is not a violation and as much as I hate this maniac he is under no obligation to respect NATO laws on non NATO territory.
Violating Ukraine the way he did required way more than "hopefully thought" and yet it did not stop him.
I think that no-fly zone is a guarantee to get nuked.
But assuming your logic is correct, we're screwed anyway. Putin has always wanted to rebuild the USSR. He's annexed territory in the past, he's attempting to annex it now, and he'll attempt it again in the future.. So at some point, someone's gonna push the button..
I am not sure if this is sarcasm, but yes, it is pretty much up to him.
>"He's annexed territory in the past, he's attempting to annex it now, and he'll attempt it again in the future"
I think Ukraine is where his career ends. The question is how long. And in any way I do not think that he will attack NATO unless in return. I could be wrong but I prefer having a chance not to be annihilated vs a guarantee to the opposite.
I am not a supporter of the no-fly zone request from Ukraine, and it would almost certainty escalate the situation to the point of NATO being at war with Russia. However, it would be theoretically possible for the no-fly zone to be imposed without a single Russian plane being shot down—all Russia would have to do is to cease flying over Ukraine.
Why not go further? Why stop at the air? Why not make the whole country a DMZ? After all,
"it would be theoretically possible for a demilitarized zone to be imposed without a single Russian soldier being injured—all Russia would have to do is to pull all military out of Ukraine."
Of course, withdrawing all russian military from Ukraine would take days. Declaring a no-fly zone is faster and a good start.
My point is that "no fly zone" is pretty similar to "boots on ground", even if they're "peacekeepers". It's not some sort of special military operation you can declare that won't provoke a response from putin.
With ground forces it’s not that clear, Russia could still try to and potentially succeed to achieve some military objectives (especially if they are able to occupy any densely populated areas before NATO forces show up) because NATO countries would be 100x times less willing to sacrifice the lives of their soldiers and probably much less willing to risk civilian casualties.
Also, assuming there is a guarantee (which is obviously impossible) I assume most people in western countries would support a no fly zone. I expect much fewer would support actual boots on the ground even given the same guarantee.
Of course the risk of escalation is too great in either case..
I'm not sure we can assume that much, given how the invasion has been planned and how it's being executed. Even mainstream Russian media started to criticize it with at least one commentator saying there are no good ways of getting out of this war:
It's not about rights. It's about whether you want to wake up to a mushroom cloud.
Well, if you're going to be pedantic:
There's a fundamental distinction, which you're missing, between initiated force and defensive force.
When someone robs or murders, that's initiated force. When the police use force to stop a robber or murderer, that's defensive force.
A "call to violence" is only applicable to initiated force.
For example, if I say, "let's murder Bob," that's a call to violence. If I say, "The police should arrest the murderer of Bob," that's not a call to violence.
Calling for a NATO no-fly zone is calling for defensive force, not initiated force, and thus is not a "call to violence."
I hope you can see how unjust and absurd it would be to call the defense of innocents a "call to violence."
You do understand what a NFZ in Ukraine is, right? It's not "hey fellas can ya stop flyin here, thanks". It's "we are now firing on all Russian aircraft within the zone, weapons away". Cut to WWIII, and so on.
>I hope you can see how unjust and absurd it would be to call the defense of innocents a "call to violence."
Of course a defensive call to action is a call to violence. This absurdist doublespeak is tuned to redefining words to fit how one views a conflict, and who is the aggressor and who is the agressed.
You think the US government is asking Facebook to make this decision?
No one should be un-biased about the war crimes being committed by Russians in Ukraine! Where is your humanity?
> An outlaw is a person declared as outside the protection of the law. In pre-modern societies, all legal protection was withdrawn from the criminal, so that anyone was legally empowered to persecute or kill them. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system. In early Germanic law, the death penalty is conspicuously absent, and outlawing is the most extreme punishment, presumably amounting to a death sentence in practice. The concept is known from Roman law, as the status of homo sacer, and persisted throughout the Middle Ages.
Kinda have to ask, would this include calls for violence against the ethnic Russian populations in eastern Ukraine?
edit: Reuters has added that including a location with the calls for death will be considered an "indicator of credibility" that is still prohibited.
I don’t suddenly start thinking thoughts of rage only between 9am and 9pm.
And people wonder why Russia, China, etc block facebook. That more nations haven't banned facebook really makes you wonder at the quality of leadership in these countries.
It may feel liberating for some to post such calls, but the actual killing is happening right now on the real ground, not virtual.
This is what needs to stop!
Channeling the anger and helplessness against the aggressor into the hate is not making people stronger and is not going to stop the aggression.
If anything, expressing your own thoughts and feelings about the current events and how they affect your daily lives could be not only a way to cope with this crisis, but also a way to document this uneasy and fearful time for the future self and others.
Posts, tweets etc. describing our individual and collective human experience of this is what may eventualy help find a way out of this nightmare, not the hate.
Watching closely Russian politics for the last 20 years, the one thing they do perfectly is use this kindness and tolerance of the West against them. Once in house the authorities repress everything that is democratic, decent, free and different, they demand the outside world to stick to their values to the letter, ousting every little deviation from it as the West hypocrisy. And then using it to further convince his own people that the West is rotten.
You can't win the fight if the other side always plays dirty. I believe this is more than just Ukraine-Russia conflict, this is the Cold war that actually never ended.
People in Russian govt., army, and media who are responsible for planning, authorizing, executing, and justifying this barbaric aggression against Ukraine should be tried as war criminals.
Just as the people of the Russian Federation should bear responsibility for condoning and rationalizing these actions.
The rift between people of the Russian Federation (Belarus too) and Ukraine is already ripped in millions of hearts which will likely remain unbridgeable for the forseeable future.
However, for any justice to take place, the accounts should be collected of what happened and how people's lives were affected.
That's why a hateful post by itself may be enough for someone to channel the anger and grief, but its effect would be a lot more meaningful, if the personal experiences are recounted instead.
Also, many people's daily lives, I'm sure, are touched by these events. Many may feel anxiety and horror even though they may not be directly related to Ukraine or Russia. Hate by itself will not express this. Yet documented, it is another statement to count towards those who perpertrated these crimes.
The world has been through this before, yet here we go again!
Russian soldiers invading Ukraine are combatants. Discussing battle tactics against soldiers is not the same as calling for violence against Russian civilians.
> Why is it happening on a social network that an American tech company is running and moderating?
If that's actually happening, it's because the perfect can be the enemy of the good. They're two weeks in to being invaded, so they're probably just scrambling to get organized and stay alive. I hope the Ukrainian military has better communications, but if the people in some neighborhood militia are expeditiously using FB to meet an immediate communications need, I think that's fine.
Though obviously once things stabilize a little they need to find something better, ASAP.
However, reading the article, this doesn't sound so much like it's because of discussions of battle plans, but rather a situation where hatred and calls to violence are justified and healthy responses, and their previous policies didn't capture that nuance.
That's correct. That's why I'm puzzled by the phrase "Russians and Russian soldiers". The idea of attacking the former sounds like a nightmare. And I'd say it's a quick way for Ukraine to lose at least some international support. Defending your country is the right thing, attacking innocent people is the opposite of that.
This shit is depressing.
Article specifically states that it differentiates between "Russians", and "Russian Military/Soldiers".
> "The Hate Speech policy continues to prohibit attacks on Russians," the email stated.
/s
It's like that stupid joke... "I hate racism and Russians (or whatever)."
"Facebook temporarily allows posts on Ukraine war calling for violence against invading Russians or Putin's death"
The lead paragraph goes on to say:
> Meta Platforms (FB.O) will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion
(emphasis mine)
And Meta stated in the article that:
> We still won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians,
I'm not saying I agree or disagree but the title should be corrected as this nuance is important, as it indicates generic calls for violence against any and all Russians is still not acceptable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex...
> Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.
If the answer is yes,could we conclude that most of the war related content is not really controlled by Facebook and rather by the military?
-- Hypocrite Valley
Seems to be a common response: if it’s not big tech it’s automatically 4chan.
> Based on Chicago principles, less virtue signaling and more doing, apolitical and completely ruthlessly neutral (like Switzerland), highly capitalistic but also with strong integrity, protect the interest of United States and its allies, straightforward CEOs that don’t speak corporate lingo, work with DoD and DARPA, unwavering support for human rights. Above all, have conviction of their own and not buckle under pressure, and won’t sell out to questionable labor practices in China. 100% domestic.
> Seems to be a common response: if it’s not big tech it’s automatically 4chan.
That seems like a lot of oxymorons - what are they doing that is apolitical, but also happily involved in defense, but also interested in human rights? And neutral like Switzerland but only in regards to America?
If they enable the air force to better bomb civilians in a foreign country is that still apolitical and for human rights? How does it approach the knowledge that those agencies are doing their best to do questionable things to its own citizens rights? What happens in 4 years if domestic policy changes? Do they not lobby? And they never leave the United States? Can you have a Facebook/Google/Amazon and be exclusively in America?
Oxymorons are currently present in the way Apple does its PR - no problem with sweatshop labor in China, but they'll never miss a chance to have a political opinion about other things - diversity, BLM, Ukraine, etc. Whatever aligns with their audience.
Yes, but as noted by Scott Alexander:
The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
Hating someone also doesn't mean they are worth the jail time from a violent act.
There are already multiple car accidents caused by Ukrainian refuges in Romania because they're too distraught due to what they've suffered so far. And you want them to not hate Russians? You can't be rational when you see your battered 5 year old in the morgue.
Further, I wouldn't judge harshly anyone that exacted revenge though I would remind anyone that "revenge is a dish best served cold."
But the regulations apply to "Russians and Russian soldiers", not just the invaders. Would you be okay with calls of violence against saudi civilians because of their government's involvement in the 9/11 attacks?
Again, this is deliberate obtuseness. If a pack of grizzly bears break into my house and I scream "Kill the bears!" I'm obviously not calling for genocide against ursus arctos horribilis.
They said the calls for violence against Russian soldiers were allowed because this was being used as a proxy for the Russian military, and said it would not apply to prisoners of war.
It's not permissible when referring to anyone but Russian soldiers actively involved in the invasion, not even ones who were involved but are no longer. I don't know how the meaning could be any more explicit.
The exact wording in the first paragraph was:
>Meta Platforms (FB.O) will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion
Which would suggest call for violence towards "Russians" (presumably all russians, not just russian military personnel) would be allowed. That said, the article was later edited and clarified that the exemption did not apply to russian civilians, so the question is largely moot.
So it's ok to praise literal neo-Nazis now, as long as it lines up with business and political interests? Someone less cynical than me, please explain.
> If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." -- Churchill
Those neo nazis are defending Ukraine. What are you proposing? Should they surrender and let Russians do another Holodomor?
We truly live in a post-sarcasm world. Not even the fucking onion could make this shit up. Perhaps next week will be followed by headlines like "Ethnic cleansing environmentally friendly, scientists conclude", "Did Hitler give a bad name to holocausts?" and a few extra "Why a nuclear war isn't going to be this bad".
Ultimately, they don't care and they are on no-one's side. Thus, they will never change. Outrage sells more ads.
And you can still sue people for hate speech and libel if they post such on Facebook. You just can't sue Facebook itself.
"March 10 (Reuters) - Meta Platforms (FB.O) will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion, according to internal emails seen by Reuters on Thursday, in a temporary change to its hate speech policy. The social media company is also temporarily allowing posts that call for death to Russian President Vladimir Putin or Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko in countries including Russia, Ukraine and Poland, according to a series of internal emails to its content moderators."
2 mins of hate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk
The actual content states (emphasis mine):
...temporarily allowing some posts that call for death to Russian President *Vladimir Putin* or Belarusian President *Alexander Lukashenko* in *countries including Russia, Ukraine and Poland*...
>Meta Platforms (FB.O) will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion
People here are upset by "russians", which could conceivably mean russian civilians.
> "We still won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians"
See, it's not that "hate speech" is bad! It's just... We need to make sure we direct it towards the right people ™!
all insignificant compared to the suffering Russia is imposing on Ukraine. Russophobia should be the least of people's worries when Russia is dropping bombs on hospitals full of Ukrainian kids.
And before "whataboutism people" come here say "USA does it too", well, yeah, that's why a lot of people in middle east have a visceral hatred for Americans.
we had a lot of visceral hatred for them, too, because our media in the early 00s propagandized us into having visceral hatred for them, in order to manufacture consent for invasion. the rest of the decade was spent telling us that we were morally wrong for having this visceral hatred for them—despite said visceral hatred having been intentionally instilled upon us. now, in hindsight, few are willing to acknowledge what happened, because to do so would be to admit having had, in the past, irrationally visceral hatred for a broad group of people, for ill-defined reasons, only to go on to "unlearn" this behavior later on, and we all want to think of ourselves as good people, so let's just pretend none of that ever happened.
I fully expect this exact same pattern to play out again this time, too.
It might be more becoming to say "Many people are dying and I think it's inappropriate to use a generic, vague expression pertaining to this other, much less directly violent thing." Or words to that effect. But I'm not surprised that the GP post was so shocked by the phrasing that they resorted to sarcasm instead.
this is supposed to be against the rules here on HN. it's not as though I didn't understand what was being communicated.
If it were up to me, I'd tell people that they have to keep far away from the line, and not try to sidle up to it without crossing it. But as you can tell from the many other comments, many people disagree that there should be any moderation at all, and certainly would allow something that isn't explicitly a call for violence.
I am enjoying the irony of discussing the moderation of a nonviolent comment in a thread about relaxed moderation of violent content.
I have not much sympathy for dictators in general, but the fact that's Putin is a dictator does not means the others are good and democratic people and that's *must be* learnt for the sake of our democracies because actually our own propaganda sound exactly like Chinese one, no more "news", no more "truth", no more "debate", just single-party official directive. In China the single party is formal, have uniforms and a flag, here it's anonymous suit and tie, no flags, but the rest is exactly the same.
He is that stupid....and evil.
>"They trust me — dumb fucks"
but seriously, closing your Facebook account and moving to instagram really doesn't send much of a message, does it? It's the same evil company.