Hacker News Reader

The reality is a lot narrower than you're implying, however:

“We are issuing a spirit-of-the-policy allowance to allow T1 violent speech that would otherwise be removed under the hate speech policy when: (a) targeting Russian soldiers, except prisoners of war, or (b) targeting Russians where it’s clear that the context is the Russian invasion of Ukraine (eg content mentions the invasion, self-defense, etc),”

...

Meta spokesman Joe Osborne previously said the company was “for the time being, making a narrow exception for praise of the Azov regiment strictly in the context of defending Ukraine, or in their role as part of the Ukraine National Guard”.

Specifically the rule change that FB made to allow violent statements against Russians (but not against any other group) is an overstatement that is not factual, because it implies that violent speech toward Russians is generally tolerated on Facebook.

Where did that quote come from? I know that FB took some flack for their rule change and issued a second statement on it that walked things back a bit. Is your quote from that?

From the article you linked in your comment

Ah yes, that was from the email that they sent to moderators, not part of the (original) public statement (unless I'm misreading).

But yes thank you, that's good to point out

The original articles were based on internal emails that Reuters obtained and published without any comment or public statement.

Ah interesting, thank you, I was wondering why the original was impossible to find. I'm going to verify this and then I'll update my original post with this info cause IMHO that's quite relevant.

Just out of curiosity (I'm a non-native speaker):

Is there a difference between flak and flack? Are these regional variants, maybe a US/UK thing? Would you use either, depending on exact context (literal flak-cannon vs "taking flack" phrasal verb)?

"Flak" (meaning an anti-aircraft gun or shrapnel therefrom) can also be spelled "flack." The phrase "taking flack" is either a literal or metaphorical use of this meaning.

A flack (never spelled without a c) is a public relations or press agent, and to flack is to promote something (or otherwise do the work of a flack).

Oops sorry, I started a reply and got sidetracked and didn't finish!

Yes sibling comment is correct, no difference other than spelling between flak and flack. Sounds like flak is more common.

It's a common idiom (at least in the US), especially regarding anything remotely political, about having multiple people "target" a person who says something they disagree with. Especially common if person A does or says something and then a bunch of news outlets/pundits criticize them for it, it's said that they're "taking flak" for whatever they did.

An important note, the expression itself does not make a value judgment or convey any sort of "right" or "wrong" or good/evil on either party. You can "take flak" for saying stupid stuff, and you can "take flak" for speaking the truth in the empire of lies [1].

[1] A refernce to Orwell's quote: "Truth is treason in the empire of lies"

the quote makes it clear that FB is enabling threats against the Russian military (and Russians in the context of war), which would naturally cause the Russian govt to classify them as a hostile actor.

the Azov movement is the neo-Nazi organization, which is clear from reporting prior to 2022:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary-...

https://jpost.com/Diaspora/US-lifts-ban-on-funding-neo-Nazi-...

https://bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329

theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/02/neo-nazi-groups-recruit-britons-to-fight-in-ukraine

I think your comment is helpful, but your username does make it more interesting :-D

Not walking meekly into the gas chamber is a hostile action according to the Russians.

Russia has neo-nazis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group ), islamists ( Kadyrov's thugs ) and they're planning on having al-Assad's soldiers over to slaughter Ukrainians. The Azov guys are at least doing something good for once: defending people.

>The Azov guys are at least doing something good for once

It looks like Putin called them out early on in the conflict (Feb 25) so I believe their presence is doing more harm than good

>Russian President Vladimir Putin calls on the Ukrainian army to overthrow the country’s leadership whom he described as “terrorists” and “a gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis.”

https://timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/putin-calls-on-ukra...

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. If Putin is against something it’s doing more harm than good? That’s an extremely low bar, because he and the Russian gov say a lot of things, a lot of which are untrue.

The "Wagner = neo-Nazi" narrative appears to be disinformation based on 1 unverified image

Well, the "Wagner" by itself is a reference to Richard Wagner which is commonly associated with Nazy Germany [1].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_controversies

That is an absurd guilt by association. Hitler does not own all references to a composer that he enjoyed posthumously.

By your logic, the Nexus Institute and its guests are neo-Nazis because they had a Wagner-themed round table discussion.

https://prometheanartists.com/new-events/2019/11/9/nexus-ins...

It disproves your original statement of "1 unverified image". There's much more, and there's certainly no reason to think it's a coincidence the guy chose a callsign with clear Nazi symbolism.

Good luck keeping this up if you admit Rusich has anything to do with Wagner.

It does not prove anything. It is an evidence-free attempt at guilt by association.

The only "evidence" I have seen to support the claim that Wagner is a neo-Nazi org is a single bizarre selfie of a Nazi-tattoo covered guy that some Western media alleged is the founder of Wagner. Again, most likely just misinformation.

No, you're changing my words. I didn't tell that everything Wagner related is always neo-Nazi. I said that they choose the name because it's common to think that Wagner is associated with Nazi Germany. It doesn't matter if latter is true or not because it's only a label to send a message. Same as 14 and 88 are just numbers and are not necessary to mean Nazi, but when you see certain type of people using them you understand what they mean.

"Wagner are neoNazis because they choose the name Wagner because they are neoNazis"

Circular reasoning.

FB did not "play into their hands". Facebook made a sane decision that most corporations are incapable of making. You don't want to ban Ukrainians for talking about killing Russian soldiers, it should be encouraged.

Would you want to ban Afghans from talking about killing American soldiers?

Afghans in Afghanistan? No.

You wouldn't, but Facebook would.

And that's fine, they are allowed to make that decision.

Counterpoint - encouraging the average Ukrainian to "kill Russian soldiers" puts their lives at risk as well since the Russian soldiers are better armed. And lets say they get geeked up and start firing into the street form an apartment building, to which the Russians respond by launching a missile into and killing others who weren't trying to engage the soldiers.

The sane response would be to consistently call for non-violent posts only on the platform.

You certainly fall into the category of good men that do nothing. The rest of us will fight to preserve the freedoms we have and those of others.

Correction, I fall into the category of people who think the US probably should never have helped finance and foment the coup in 2014, picked our guy to lead Ukraine after the coup, and then rewrite the Constitution specifically to put NATO expansion on the menu knowing it would antagonize Russia.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

And that's not to absolve Putin, but if I pay a guy to wrestle a wild grizzly bear because I want to piss the bear off, then I deserve some of the blame because the bear just did what bears do. And the guy who wrestled the bear should have known better too.

This isn't reddit. No one appreciates going on wild tangents here. Calm down and read the rules.

This was in direct response to you accusing me of something incorrectly. Is the correct response to just say "ya, sounds like me"?

> ...change that FB made to allow violent statements against Russians.

Yeah, that's not what happened.

Not sure what your deal is, but you yourself know that's not what happened given your own quote.

Are soldiers in the Russian army not Russians? Do you consider members of your country's army to be fellow citizens of your country? Or do you think of them as different?

Let's imagine the issue is about gay people who murder their partners. Reframing it as "against gay people" might be technically true, but factually incorrect.

Thanks that's an interesting point. I'll have to think on that a bit.

That's a contrived reframing. Why not have the issue be about "people who murder their partners"? What does their sexuality have to do with anything? If someone made your issue, I would immediately assume it was a veiled act of prejudice (e.g. replace "gay" with "Black").

A more honest reframing would be VK allowing/encouraging people to say "Death to America" and death threats against American soldiers, due to illegal invasions in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Syria/etc.

How do you think Western governments would respond to that, if it became a big deal?

The OPs claim is that allowing violent rhetoric against the Russian army is anti-Russian. True or not, how "Western governments would respond to" allowing violent rhetoric against US soldiers, isn't relevant to that claim.

And, no, violent rhetoric against an invading national army is not equivalent to violent rhetoric against an ethnicity. The idea is offensive.

> And, no, violent rhetoric against an invading national army is not equivalent to violent rhetoric against an ethnicity. The idea is offensive.

Logically, you are correct.

In reality, people aren't so logical. They see Russia, they see red. There has been a massive explosion of outright russophobia across the West since the war started.

You could argue that the effects of allowing violent rhetoric against an invading army is tantamount to allowing violent rhetoric against an ethnicity. Then we can have something to discuss. I would disagree, but it's not untrue.

What OP said is that violent rhetoric against an ethnicity (Russians) is allowed, which is not true.

You are of course aware that russophobia against ethnic Russians was the pretense by which Russia invaded Ukraine the first time. It was reprehensible then to conflate ethnic violence with nationalistic expansionist rationalizations, and it is reprehensible now.

You keep repeating variations of this:

> What OP said is that violent rhetoric against an ethnicity (Russians) is allowed, which is not true.

No, that's NOT what I said. And you should know this, as I already told you at least once: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30755880

What I actually said:

> Before we all pile on Russia, if you aren't aware of the rule change that FB made to allow violent statements against Russians (but not against any other group), you should learn about that.

I consider members of the Russian military (who, by the way, are mostly there by force, not free choice) to still be Russians. Unless you want to turn my statement into a strawman that you can easily knock down, then you should be making the argument that members of the Russian military aren't Russians.

> I consider members of the Russian military... to still be Russians. therefore FB allows violent statements against Russians

This is sophistry and a category error; and even were it arguable, it is literally incorrect. The Russian army is comprised of other ethnicities and nationalities as well. https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-701018

Advocating violence against an invading army: ethical. Advocating violence against members of an ethnicity: reprehensible. Conflating the two, so that people might believe that one is the same as the other: confused at best, if not evil. Which is what you are attempting to do, here.

I keep "repeating variations of this" because it is exactly what you wrote. You conflated "Russians" with the "Russian army". When called out on it, you doubled down "Well, Russian soldiers are technically Russians so...." You did that. No one else.

Do you think FB allows talk of killing "gay people who murder their partners"?

Your sophistry fools no one.

I see you've switched to ad hominem.

I see you don't know what ad hominem means, nor sophistry evidently

You're trying to unfairly paint Facebook as having crossed a Rubicon with this decision. If the rules banned any exhortation to or glorification of violence, recruiting ads for the armed forces would have never been permitted. If Facebook forced itself to be blind to the difference between criminal violence and acts of war, Al Qaeda, Isis, and extra-legal militia groups would have been allowed to advocate for their violent ends.

There is nuance to take account of here, and "just stating facts" is either a naive or disingenuous way to engage.

> You're trying to unfairly paint Facebook as having crossed a Rubicon with this decision.

No, I'm not, and frankly I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. My personal opinion is that FB made a good decision, and I support it. But I don't want to pretend that everything is completely binary and/or happens in a vacuum. I strongly believe that if humanity is to move beyond our current hyper-polarization, we need a renewed interest in separating facts from beliefs/opinions/perception.

Please point out any of the facts that I have that are incorrect. If you're arguing a similar position of most modern journalists that facts themselves aren't enough because people might reach incorrect conclusions with them, so we need to editorialize a bit to ensure people reach the "right" conclusion, then we have a philosophical disagreement. I'll still assume good faith on your part though, something you aren't willing to do for me.

It's the parenthetical "but not against any other group" assertion you made that is factually incorrect. Facebook repeatedly allowed statements celebrating military defeats of Isis and urging the local population to resist. These statements came from the then-president of the US and were not something that just flew under the radar.

> No, I'm not, and frankly I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith.

I did not assume bad faith, and if you reread my comment, you will see that I said your position was either naive or disingenuous. My hunch is that the former is accurate and that another party that made the argument in bad faith in the hopes of taking advantage of others' naivete.

> If the rules banned any exhortation to or glorification of violence, recruiting ads for the armed forces would have never been permitted.

That would have been an unqualified good. Acts of war are criminal violence.

It certainly would have avoided creating some ambiguity, but that has not been Facebook’s position at any point as far as I know.

Calling for death to Russian invaders or dictator Putin is not russophobia, so that whole argument falls flat right there.

If the distinction is unclear to you, here's a quick tip: if somebody hates you for what you are, that's racism (or some other form of deplorable hatred).

If someone hates you for what you do, that's not racism.

I never said it was russophobia. that was a quote from the court.

> If the distinction is unclear to you, here's a quick tip: if somebody hates you for what you are, that's racism (or some other form of deplorable hate).

What if somebody hates you for something that another person of your race did, but that you personally didn't do, especially if you personally radically oppose it? Is that racism?

Yes, that's racism. But also yes, it's easy to imagine situations where the distinction isn't that trivial anymore.

Sure that’s racism. However, I don’t see much evidence of radical opposition to war from people in the Russian military.

And even if there were some, it would still be fine to call for a fight against the majority who are obediently serving.

Merely having an ethnicity, can’t be your shield if your military sieges cities and bombs them.

It's very odd to see a company release an statement containing the sentence "death to the Russian invaders". No company run by adults would trip over that wire.

The policy itself aside, there's no reason to provide that specific example.

They didn't allow that, they only allowed attacks on Russian soldiers.

> allow violent statements against Russians

Nonsense. It's against Russian invaders, which makes complete sense. When they come in to bomb schools and maternity wards how else are you going to stop them without killing them?

The Russians are acting like victims even when they're Nazi invaders.

I don't think[1] FB had any problem with banning people who made 'violent statements'[2] against coalition forces in, say, Iraq.

There is an obvious contradiction in social media rules about violence. Encouraging violence = bad. A politician encouraging violence (By drumming up support for a war) = good. Wishing death and ruin upon our soldiers = bad. Wishing death and ruin upon enemy soldiers = good.

It's perfectly fine to be partial about this sort of thing (Facebook does not exist in some weird non-political, non-aligned space - it is an American company, with a large overlap with a broadly western worldview), but once you are, you do need to accept that you are serving as a propaganda organ.

[1] But I don't know for sure.

[2] I mean, there's a wide range of things that are encompassed by this.

> Nonsense. It's against Russian invaders,

Are you saying that "Russian invaders" aren't "Russians" ?

Of course Russian invaders are Russians. But it's against them as invaders, not against them as Russians.

What do you want? A way of opposing the invasion that doesn't involve shooting the invaders? That would be nice, but we don't have one of those. (Putin does - he could order a withdrawal right now if he chose.)

So if we're going to do more than say "tsk, tsk" in response to the invasion, it's going to involve killing invaders. And those invaders happen to be Russians, so it's going to involve killing Russians - not because they're Russians, but because they invaded Ukraine.

This is all really obvious. I can't tell if you're just being super pedantic, or if you're trying to obscure reality.

Russian invaders are a subset of Russians. Acting against a subset is not the same as acting against the whole. The 'invaders' is the critical part and whether they are Russian, Chechen or Syrian makes little difference.