Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfengel | Hacker News Reader

It doesn't surprise me that a novel medium would change its rules as unexpected events arise.

I've got plenty of qualms about the way Facebook has handled it, but of course there was something wrong with the rules -- they had never tried them out under these circumstances. All three of the things you cite are using/abusing social media in ways that have never been done before.

Principles are great, but if you can't change your principles when the world changes around you, then they're not so much "principles" as "dogma". The world is a complex and difficult place, and I don't expect any simple set of principles to be adequate to all of the things I don't anticipate. I try to anticipate everything I can, but it's no surprise that I'm sometimes surprised.

View on HN

There have been many wars around the world since Facebook was founded in 2004. What about these circumstances is different than with other armed conflicts? Why should the principles change?

None of those threatened to become nuclear wars. While nuclear-armed nations have been at war, there was never any real suggestion that nuclear weapons would be used.

Also, Facebook has become increasingly conscious over the past half-decade or so of the role that it plays in events. It has already changed its policies to be more activist in preventing the use of its platform for advocating violence. That decision forces more downstream decisions, which will be different than in the past.

> None of those threatened to become nuclear wars

How is this even relevant? And do you think fueling hatred is a right call to reduce the probability of nuclear war?

So are you proposing that a vague statement by one of the combatant countries which could be interpreted as a threat to use nuclear weapons in some hypothetical future scenario should be the policy dividing line for Facebook? Back in 2018 the US government suggested that we might use nuclear weapons to retaliate against a serious cyber attack. So by that standard we've been under threat of nuclear war for some time now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/pentagon-nucl...

Nuclear powers have been involved in wars since 2004. There's no reason to think that the US would not use nukes if war stopped going in their favour

India and Pakistan have nukes and shoot at each other and occasionally have KIAs though not technically at war, the rhetoric between the different parties does get violent.

I don't think any of these skirmishes have ever come close to an existential threat to either party. If things ever come to that, I have little doubt that nukes would be used.

Principles, treaties, and ideals tend to go out the window when parties are backed in a corner with no alternative options.

it is not in the interest of the US to normalise the use of nuclear weapons in tactical scenarios

> There have been many wars around the world, why is different now?

Is important to mention that Anti-War feeling is accumulative, not independent events. Everybody is much more upset about this war precisely for having suffered, paid for, and experienced the past wars fiascos.

The free dinner pass card to start wars after 9/11 using fake pretenses has expired. To use twice the "but they have WMD" card would be much more difficult now

Seeing Putin to use exactly the same lies an excuses to blame on other for his own acts is sickening.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com