Hacker News Reader

Comment by icare_1er | Hacker News Reader

Removing incitements to violence seems like a good thing, and I would guess their customers (the advertisers) fully support it. The fact that they do it so badly is entirely on them.

Is removing incitements to violence always a good thing? Apparently Facebook makes an exception when it comes to violence against the Russians invading Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-facebook-inst...

I do support the right of Ukrainians to defend their country. But I'm not comfortable with giving social media corporate employees the power to decide which violence is good and which is bad.

FB has literally unbanned groups that were considered nearly terrorists several years ago (Azov), the second they became anti-Putin.

Goes to show how grotesque those making the rules on Good and Bad are - I am sure we can find similar stuff regarding Saudi Arabia, which is pretty much a Daesh that succeeded at gaining power and keeping it.

> the left, with its eternal desire to monitor what everyone says or even thinks.

Would you say that the NSA is a left wing organization then?

No, but the opposition that the left once fronted to the NSA's surveillance has withered in the past ten years or so and (some) republicans have picked up the slack. Not too long ago the "war on terror" was considered to be the road to authoritarianism, now democrats are openly championing making it a new domestic war on terror. To those who opposed the war on terror from the beginning it's scary how quickly this opposition was abandoned by some once they could be the ones to wield it.

I'm really bothered by the way you casually conflate an actual war in the middle east---the longest war in American history, by the way---with a metaphorical war on domestic violent extremism and neonazism. these are two very different things.

I used quotes to indicate I'm not talking about the war itself but about the surveillance state established in the aftermath of 9/11 (and shenanigans such as the pushing of mentally ill people into acts of terrorism they would never have committed without interference), which is the clear parallel politicians themselves want to draw when they say "war on domestic terror" (unless you believe they want to start another civil war by deploying troops in the states). Same as one would with "war on drugs".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com