[HN Gopher] Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls fo...
___________________________________________________________________
Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence
against Russians
Author : jmsflknr
Score : 87 points
Date : 2022-03-10 21:27 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| Manuel_D wrote:
| On a pedantic level, saying NATO should impose a no-fly-zone is a
| call to violence. Did these platform ever forbid calls for State-
| sanctioned force? I would have assumed that these parts of the
| user terms were referring to unsanctioned, or otherwise criminal
| violence.
| torginus wrote:
| I wouldn't say so, it's a discussion of military strategy in a
| war zone. I'm far more concerned about 'You should punch your
| Russian expat neighbor in the face.'
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| "A no-fly zone" is one of the worst misnomers out there. In
| this case, it means that NATO - and specifically the USA - will
| start shooting Russian aircrafts. Sending NATO aircraft is not
| different from sending tanks. I understand why Ukrainians are
| asking for it but there is a reason NATO can't get involved.
| mech422 wrote:
| That depends if you violate the no fly zone... No one would
| be forcing Putin to violate it.
| FpUser wrote:
| I do not think he would give a flying fuck about zone. And
| if planes will be shot he will have to answer and the war
| starts. Russia's army can not hope to win conventional
| conflict with NATO and is ruled by a rabid man at the top.
| the only thing it can do in response is to use nukes. After
| that say goodbye to a world.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| Even though a no-fly zone would certainty imply a warning of
| violence, it is not in itself an act of violence when
| established only in the airspace of a willing nation to the
| detriment of an aggressor. Russia has no inalienable right to
| fly over Ukrainian territory.
|
| 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.
| gruez wrote:
| >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."
| pmalynin wrote:
| Not a good reason
| vetinari wrote:
| "not starting the ww3" is not a good reason?
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| That is just an opinion. An often under-informed opinion, and
| I certainly hope NATO is not dumb enough to put in a no-fly
| zone in a non-NATO country. However that's not the same as
| calling for assasination of a country and its people. I have
| met many wonderful Russian people and I wish them all long
| and happy lives; obviously not Putin though.
| ejb999 wrote:
| >>A no-fly zone" is one of the worst misnomers out there.
|
| 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.
| wrycoder wrote:
| Yeah, it means, "We fly, you don't." Or maybe, "No
| Ukrainian or Russian aircraft - NATO aircraft will shoot
| down both."
| javert wrote:
| It's not a misnomer.
|
| 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.
| yonaguska wrote:
| A no fly-zone officially drags NATO into the conflict and
| WW3 kicks off.
| javert wrote:
| Russia is very weak country, economocally and
| demographically. It's about double the strength of Italy.
| And it has old technology. And it's badly managed.
|
| What that sums up to, is that it's weak militarily.
|
| If NATO goes into the conflict, Russia effectively loses
| in three days, with a remaining 10 days of mop-up.
|
| Russia might as well surrender immediately.
|
| Russia is gnat compared to the might of NATO. It would be
| so one-sided, it wouldn't even be right to call it a
| "war."
|
| The only potential caveat is if Russia uses nukes. But
| that doesn't start World War III. (However, It probably
| leads to a partition of Russia like the Allies did to
| Germany after WWII.)
|
| Russia is too weak to engage in a "World War" and has no
| significant allies. WWIII is not a possibility even in
| the worst-case scenario.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| lol lots of countries thought Russia was a pushover. Also
| if Russia starts losing they will start launching nukes.
| Maybe not a "end all civilization" nuke but say one aimed
| at a middle sized US city like say Portland or Little
| Rock to prove a point. Are you ready for that? Same for
| European cities.
| djrogers wrote:
| > The only potential caveat is if Russia uses nukes
|
| That's a ridiculously huge caveat - especially since the
| guy in charge appears to be unstable and has already
| threatened to use them. Triggering Putin would
| potentially be condemning hundreds of millions of people
| to death.
| FpUser wrote:
| It means nothing to keyboard warriors here.
| gruez wrote:
| >The only potential caveat is if Russia uses nukes. But
| that doesn't start World War III. (However, It probably
| leads to a partition of Russia like the Allies did to
| Germany after WWII.)
|
| and you know, most cities in the west being a nuclear
| wasteland
| FpUser wrote:
| >"The only potential caveat is if Russia uses nukes. But
| that doesn't start World War III"
|
| Of course not. It'll just vaporize millions of people.
| Pocket change.
| mullen wrote:
| > A no-fly zone is an easy win for NATO
|
| 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.
| javert wrote:
| So what if it feeds his narrative?
|
| "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.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| If NATO shoots down a Russian plane in Ukraine it is most
| likely WW3. I don't see how anyone can see it any other
| way.
| djrogers wrote:
| a) There's been very little aerial bombardment to date -
| tons of missiles, rockets, and artillery though - none of
| which respect no-fly zones. b) Do you know how that mad man
| in charge of Russia would respond if a US jet shot down one
| of his planes? I don't, but the worst case scenario is
| pretty darned bad.
| javert wrote:
| > On a pedantic level
|
| 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."
| remarkEon wrote:
| >Calling for a NATO no-fly zone is calling for defensive
| force, not initiated force, and thus is not 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.
| IAmWorried wrote:
| What the actual fuck is wrong with these people? Calling for
| literal violence against Russians is less dangerous than claiming
| masks aren't helpful? Is there something here I'm not getting?
| alar44 wrote:
| SllX wrote:
| A Government, even in Western democracies, is a severable and
| independent set of actors from the people it governs filled
| with people who have their own agency, view of the world,
| ambitions and a lot of power.
|
| The Russian Military at least is staffed with people who are
| obligated to serve and die by their country. That's part of
| being a soldier. It's one thing to sanction a nation for the
| wars prosecuted by its leaders, but if you vilify the Russian
| people, you're playing straight into Putin's propaganda and
| frankly they don't wholly deserve to be vilified either.
| bobthechef wrote:
| swamp-agr wrote:
| Just a kindly reminder about filtering out FB/Instagram/Whatsapp
| on your device or even home network:
|
| https://pastebin.com/FAV2f9eA
| adamrezich wrote:
| maybe it's time to pump the brakes a bit
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Which brakes? Russia's attack on Ukraine? Sure, let's stop or
| slow that down, but how?
| LittleMoveBig wrote:
| I would imagine the parent is referring to some of the more
| "Freedom Fries"-esque excesses of Russophobia, like canceling
| Tchaikovsky from symphony programs, discarding Russian vodka,
| banning Russian cat breeds from competitions, etc
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > I would imagine the OP is referring to some of the more
| "Freedom Fries"-esque excesses of Russophobia, like
| canceling Tchaikovsky from symphony programs, discarding
| Russian vodka, banning Russian cat breeds from
| competitions, etc
|
| 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.
| adamrezich wrote:
| > 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.
| gruez wrote:
| >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.
|
| So you'd also support Islamophobia[1], because it's "all
| insignificant compared to the suffering Islamic
| extremists (both governments and terrorist groups) are
| imposing on Americans. Islamophobia should be the least
| of people's worries when Al-Qaeda is crashing planes
| office buildings full of Americans"?
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > So you'd also support Islamophobia[1], because it's
| "all insignificant compared to the suffering Islamic
| extremists (both governments and terrorist groups) are
| imposing on Americans. Islamophobia should be the least
| of people's worries when Al-Qaeda is crashing planes
| office buildings full of Americans"?
|
| No I do not support any "phobia" and nowhere in my
| message it is said that I support anything. Stop making
| shit up from thin air in order to construct your absurd
| logic.
|
| Reread my message carefully instead of spewing your usual
| sophistry.
| gruez wrote:
| >No I do not support any "phobia" and nowhere in my
| message it is said that I support anything.
|
| Okay, let's use your wording then. Would you say that in
| the hypothetical described above, that Islamophobia would
| be "all insignificant" and "least of people's worries"?
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > Okay, let's use your wording then. Would you say that
| in the hypothetical described above, that Islamophobia
| would be "all insignificant" and "least of people's
| worries"?
|
| My bad, I didn't know Islam was a country with a
| government that decided to send tanks and jets to invade
| and bomb on a foreign country... /s
|
| That's the absurd parallel you are proudly are making as
| a sophist. Perhaps you should focus on making the Russian
| armies get the fuck out of Ukraine instead.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Plot twist: There is a Russian Blue Kitten controlling
| Putin all along :-)
| adamrezich wrote:
| it's unbecoming to willfully misinterpret someone's statement
| in order to make a point distinct from that which they were
| making, and then to go on to agree with said willful
| misinterpretation.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| It's also unbecoming to intentionally leave an ambiguous
| comment (this isn't twitter, there are no comment length
| limitations here), then be shocked when someone interprets
| it in a way you didn't intend.
| jfengel wrote:
| Sarcasm is unbecoming, but only because it's a thinly
| disguised insult. Read that comment as "What you just said
| was so egregiously stupid that I'm going to show that by
| pretending that you meant something different". Put that
| way, it would be clearly inappropriate for HN, so they use
| sarcasm as a fig leaf.
|
| 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.
| adamrezich wrote:
| > Sarcasm is unbecoming, but only because it's a thinly
| disguised insult. Read that comment as "What you just
| said was so egregiously stupid that I'm going to show
| that by pretending that you meant something different".
|
| this is supposed to be against the rules here on HN.
| jfengel wrote:
| They are hoping that by not actually putting it that way,
| they can get away with it. I don't know if they can or
| not. It's up to the moderators to make that decision of
| whether it crosses a line.
|
| 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.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Yes, maybe it's time for Russia to leave Ukraine alone. That's
| the simplest solution.
| mrtksn wrote:
| That's appalling and will be one of the last coffins on foreign
| run communication systems everywhere.
|
| 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...
| atlantas wrote:
| "I used to be fairly optimistic that we could get through a
| period of consistently higher tensions with China without
| provoking a huge racist freakout against Asian Americans but the
| current reaction against all things Russian is causing me to
| revise that way way way downward."
|
| https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1501990346170978304
| im3w1l wrote:
| Reminds me of
|
| > 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.
| Bostonian wrote:
| "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"
|
| Russian soldiers invading Ukraine are combatants. Discussing
| battle tactics against soldiers is not the same as calling for
| violence against Russian civilians.
| bathtub365 wrote:
| Why is it happening on a social network that an American tech
| company is running and moderating?
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> 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.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| > Russian soldiers invading Ukraine are combatants. Discussing
| battle tactics against soldiers is not the same as calling for
| violence against Russian civilians.
|
| 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.
| dirtyid wrote:
| FB / Twitter was kicked out of PRC for not banning calls for
| violence against Uyghurs in response to ethnic riots. Granted it
| was lack of capability to censor on PRC scale at the time, and
| they're essentially now banned in RU. Still one of the more
| blatant bullet point affirming western social media platforms are
| ultimately western foreign policy instruments - no different from
| PRC - while only matter of time before blowback affects RU
| diaspora living in west. But still not as low as cold shouldering
| paralympic athletes.
| paxys wrote:
| It's ridiculous to assume that "I hate my neighbor and am going
| to kill him" and "there's a Russian army invading my city, we
| should set up an ambush" should be held to the same standard of
| speech. Of course, a larger question is whether Facebook should
| be the arbiter for this in the first place, but then the content
| is posted on their own private platform, and unlike a lot of
| people here I still think they should have 100% control over what
| they allow and disallow vs the government dictating it.
| delusional wrote:
| > unlike a lot of people here I still think they should have
| 100% control over what they allow and disallow vs the
| government dictating it.
|
| That's a false dichotomy. There's room for reasonable
| discussion and moderate legislation in between that 100% and 0%
| control.
| gruez wrote:
| >It's ridiculous to assume that "I hate my neighbor and am
| going to kill him" and "there's a Russian army invading my
| city, we should set up an ambush" should be held to the same
| standard of speech
|
| 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?
| beebmam wrote:
| No
| Invictus0 wrote:
| What about "Let's give all the Russians wet willies?"
| mrtksn wrote:
| It's 2003, the US and UK invade Iraq claiming that they have
| WMD(which later was proven to be false).
|
| 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?
| kipchak wrote:
| If I'm reading it correctly "violence against Russians and
| Russian soldiers" seems like it would apply to both civilians
| and soldiers.
| jka wrote:
| https://archive.ph/TV8DV
|
| "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."
| thrixton wrote:
| Not surprisingly, this is a heavily editorialised headline,
| moderately so on HN and more-so on Reuters.
|
| 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*...
|
| There's a massive difference between calling for the death of
| your Russian neighbor in US vs calling for the death of Vladimir
| Putin in Ukraine.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Even more of a massive difference calling for the death of
| Vladimir Putin in _Russia_...
| rvz wrote:
| No matter how much you (as well as I) hate the fact that private
| platforms can impose or change their moderation rules unfairly on
| who ever they want, whenever they want and no matter how
| hypocritical they are, they are still private platforms and can
| do whatever they want even if it is against their own terms of
| service.
|
| Ultimately, they don't care and they are on no-one's side. Thus,
| they will never change. Outrage sells more ads.
| akvadrako wrote:
| If they were truly private platforms they would be liable for
| what's said on them. You could sue them for hate speech and
| libel, etc.
| int_19h wrote:
| That doesn't really follow. Private toll road operators
| aren't liable for accidents that happen on them due to driver
| negligence, for example - but they're still private.
|
| And you can still sue people for hate speech and libel if
| they post such on Facebook. You just can't sue Facebook
| itself.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| So hate speech is now new trend? Or prepare for war? Where are so
| called the regulations of extremism?
| gruez wrote:
| Actually it's not hate speech because "hate speech" is actually
| "hate or encourages violence towards a person or group" +
| power/oppression. Because Russians are the oppressors in this
| case, such speech against them can't be considered hate speech.
|
| /s
| tharne wrote:
| What could possibly go wrong?
| mountainb wrote:
| I guess Facebook got tired of being held responsible for
| various international pogroms and just wants to set up a
| facility for states to use social media to organize pogroms
| against minorities that they want harassed, expropriated, or
| mass-murdered. The US has become a nihilistic place that stands
| for nothing and will change its "time honored" values on a dime
| for politically opportunistic reasons.
| igravious wrote:
| Let's do something about this. What should we do?
| gruez wrote:
| Allow any and all speech that comply with local regulations,
| with exception granted for commercial speech (ie.
| spam/advertising). Don't give out victim cards.
| Thorentis wrote:
| Ah yes, the double standards continue to show themselves. We can
| hate whoever the tech giants say we can hate.
| colpabar wrote:
| Another brilliant move in the game of "let's only allow US
| approved opinions while claiming to be unbiased." Next up we'll
| be allowed to deadname russian trans people!
| djrogers wrote:
| It's never been "US Approved" - it's been what's approved by
| one group of people in the US...
| skhr0680 wrote:
| If Russia wanted calling for their troops to die to be a
| Zuckable offense, they should have spent more time focus-
| grouping catchy phrases like "the smoking gun will be a
| mushroom cloud" and "regime change"
| usui wrote:
| Jake thought about how he would conduct his morning routine that
| day. He brought the razor closer to his face as he stared at
| another face in the mirror. He looked at the template as a way to
| guide his desired look.
|
| 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.
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| This reads like an article from the Babylon Bee.
|
| See, it's not that "hate speech" is bad! It's just... We need to
| make sure we direct it towards the right people (tm)!
| barbacoa wrote:
| It's going to be really awkward when this is all over and big
| tech has to pivot back to when nationalism, strong borders,
| private firearm ownership, and armed neo-nazi militias[0] were
| all bad things.
|
| [0] https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-
| ba...
| bushbaba wrote:
| Or the defense that they "can't" censor for the government.
| usernomdeguerre wrote:
| You may not even be able to express calls for peace and be a
| conscientious objector! https://www.reuters.com/business/media-
| telecom/china-censors...
| 323 wrote:
| The Israeli military is arming and training the neo-nazi
| militias in Ukraine. There are even Orthodox Jews who joined
| the Azov neo-nazi militias to defend Ukraine. Sometimes it can
| be complicated.
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukrainian-jews-push-back-again...
|
| https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rights-groups-demand-isr...
| forum_ghost wrote:
| Israel sells weapons to anyone, it's just business.
|
| 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?
| delusional wrote:
| War makes unlikely alliances. If you're fighting for the
| existence of your country you're not going to say no to the
| help of nazis. And if you're using the biggest social media
| platform on the planet to organize that war, you're going to
| want your allies on it.
|
| 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.
| nradov wrote:
| How should Facebook adjust policies on a country by country
| basis? Should Facebook ban content on homosexuality or
| marijuana use in countries where those things are illegal?
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Surprised to see no talk about revenue. I am highly cynical
| about it - This hate that we're talking about _sells_. It sells
| like hotcakes. The entire world is on a binge with it.
|
| 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.
| andybak wrote:
| > boarders
|
| I think you meant "borders".
| barbacoa wrote:
| edited
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| That's just it though. The position was never that it was BAD
| per-se.
|
| 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.
| rosndo wrote:
| Ah no. Nazis are bad. But it's okay to praise Nazis for doing
| good things.
|
| This is perfectly internally consistent.
| failedengineer wrote:
| Controversial take.
|
| "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.
| delusional wrote:
| I think the saying is "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
| Notice that when that second enemy isn't there, the
| friendship vanishes as well.
|
| Nazis can be accepted while fighting a bigger enemy without
| having to accept them when the enemy is defeated.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| As Stalin said during WWII about working with the west:
| "You can walk with the devil to the end of the bridge."
|
| 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."
| rvz wrote:
| They are going to have a hard time trying to explain themselves
| as to why they are praising Nazis on their platform and why
| they did not 'de-platform hate' especially those ones.
|
| For companies like Facebook and Instagram, outrage sells;
| especially during a war. So why not squeeze out extra ads while
| they are at it?
| Melatonic wrote:
| I suspect this is the real reason. Condone "Outrage" whenever
| you think you can get away with it.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| This seems like a bad idea. I certainly wouldn't miss Putin, but
| this all just opens up a can of worms and internet diarrhea.
| Leave that for subs on reddit where it's at least boxed off and
| easy to avoid.
| Melatonic wrote:
| So much for Facebooks claim that the userbase is too big to
| effectively moderate
| LittleMoveBig wrote:
| > _call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the
| context of the Ukraine invasion_
|
| 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.
| older wrote:
| Yeah, about violence against the ethnic Russian populations in
| eastern Ukraine - doesn't seem that Russia needs any help
| there. Russians are bombing and killing civilians in those
| Russian speaking cities even without permission from facebook.
| johndfsgdgdfg wrote:
| Sometimes I think what would happen if China invades Taiwan?
| Would FB and IG still allow calls for violence against Chinese? I
| am pretty sure many people will change their tunes when it comes
| to China, similar to what happened regarding COVID.
| spiderice wrote:
| FB and IG already don't operate in China. Out of all the big
| tech companies, I would think that FB would have the least
| issue with standing up to China.
|
| Not necessarily saying they would. I don't know enough. But
| they certainly have a lot less conflict of interest.
| squarefoot wrote:
| They still have to buy their hardware in China, or from
| suppliers who buy in China.
| atlantas wrote:
| That's when the rubber meets the road. It's easy for Apple to
| virtue signal in this case, but I have a feeling they'll think
| different with China.
| EGreg wrote:
| China and USA.
|
| 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.)
| FpUser wrote:
| >"that are themselves at the same time unapologetically
| biased and unmoved by the same appeals"
|
| Not all Russians. Many are pretty much moved to the point of
| going out and protesting knowing that they would be arrested.
| math_denial wrote:
| I'm so glad US private tech corporations tell me what to think.
| [deleted]
| thinkingemote wrote:
| Hate is hate. Morality is absolute, not relative.
| causality0 wrote:
| Even as a moral absolutist myself that's a laughable
| oversimplification bordering on deliberate obtuseness.
| Obviously all hate is not the same. You call for the
| extermination of covid-19 and nobody will disagree with you.
| You call for the extermination of mosquitos and most people
| won't disagree with you. You call for the extermination of
| destructive invasive species and a majority of people will
| agree with you. Some reasons for hate are acceptable and some
| are not. Hating someone because of their race is not
| acceptable. Hating someone because they invaded your country
| and bombed your fleeing women and children is acceptable.
| yamrzou wrote:
| > Hating someone because they invaded your country and bombed
| your fleeing women and children is acceptable.
|
| Fine. Now contrast that to how Facebook handled Plestinian
| content in response to Israeli hostilities:
| https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/10/08/israel/palestine-
| faceboo...
| gruez wrote:
| > Hating someone because of their race is not acceptable.
| Hating someone because they invaded your country and bombed
| your fleeing women and children is acceptable.
|
| 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?
| causality0 wrote:
| _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._
|
| 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.
| gruez wrote:
| I find it strange that you accuse me of being "obtuse",
| but you respond with the most softball examples. What
| about calls of violence against "russians"? Is "let's
| find russian nationals in ukraine and lynch them" okay?
| What about "let's invade russia and kill women children
| as payback"? I would hope not, but based on a permissive
| reading of the article it certainly seems allowed.
| bobthechef wrote:
| numeromancer wrote:
| "All hate is hate, but some hate is more hate than others."
|
| -- Hypocrite Valley
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I would love to see a rise of alternative BigTech (FB,
| Google, Apple, Microsoft). Not the Parlor kind, but more
| leaning towards libertarian values and the foundational
| principles of the United States. Perhaps based in the East
| Coast: Philadelphia, Chicago or Boston.
| causality0 wrote:
| Not big tech, but an internet version of a post office.
| That is, a government-provided at-cost presence on the web
| linked to your real identity that can't be taken away from
| you without a court order and whose only rules are the laws
| of the United States. I don't think we have it in us,
| though.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| What would that look like? A messenger app or forum, sure I
| can see that, we have 4chan, but I'm having a hard time
| envisioning a whole bigtech corp embodying those ideals or
| even what those ideals are that would be embodied.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| 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.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| You're editing a lot, so I want to snapshot what you said
| at the point of time I'm responding:
|
| > 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?
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Why such a hostile response? I am trying to have a
| peaceful discussion. And all those rhetorical questions
| appear to be strawmaning what I am proposing.
|
| 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.
| adamrezich wrote:
| that's the stated goal of Gab and its sub-brands, but
| [insert reasons for why they're bad here]
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| The CTO of gab posts here and he was actively pushing
| Russian propoganda pre-invasion
| bostonsre wrote:
| I don't think hugs are going to stop russia in ukraine.
| dade_ wrote:
| Calls for violence and hate are different things. I don't hate
| Russians, but I support violence against their soldiers
| invading Ukraine.
|
| Hating someone also doesn't mean they are worth the jail time
| from a violent act.
| kipchak wrote:
| This seems like it would apply to calls to violence against
| civillians as well if I'm understanding correctly, "violence
| against Russians and Russian soldiers". Under that definition
| "Someone should go start stabbing Russian shoppers in
| Evropeysky" for example would seem to be ok.
| gusgus01 wrote:
| That's a hotly debated philosophical concept, moral absolutism
| and moral relativism and everything in between. I'd assume from
| your statement you're a moral absolutist, but that does not
| make that statement an absolute truth.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Not only is GP a moral absolutist, but GP's system of
| morality postulates that hate is bad. It is also possible to
| be a moral absolutist with other postulates from which you
| can derive that hate is bad in many cases but not all.
| [deleted]
| ronnier wrote:
| Close your facebook (and whatsapp, insta, etc) account and move
| on and encourage others to do the same.
| ejb999 wrote:
| I'd close it again if I could, but that would required creating
| another one first.
|
| 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.
| ronnier wrote:
| My comment wasn't clear. I updated it. Close them all. Use
| adblock and make sure they don't track you from social logins
| etc. Take every action you can to not feed that monster. Be
| anti-facebook and make your friends and family aware.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| I can't believe this is real. Zuckerberg might not be the
| brightest guy but I can't believe he could be that stupid. I hope
| Meta will back down and apologize very soon.
| ejb999 wrote:
| >> but I can't believe he could be that stupid.
|
| He is that stupid....and evil.
| slig wrote:
| He's anything but stupid.
|
| >"They trust me -- dumb fucks"
| [deleted]
| Kharvok wrote:
| I 100% support Ukraine but this is building a muscular reflex
| pattern than can't be unlearned. We shouldn't have private tech
| enforcing state wishes. They are no longer un-biased parties.
| supergirl wrote:
| so when Russia constantly says that the West is out to get them,
| they might actually be right? if FB is so blatant about
| supporting (yeah, in some countries) violence against Russians, I
| can't even imagine what goes on in secret.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-10 23:02 UTC)