5 ms·

Upvoting because such stuff needs to be discussed, but the final paragraph must be pointed at. It makes claims about the reasons behind FB policies without any

Upvoting because such stuff needs to be discussed, but the final paragraph must be pointed at. It makes claims about the reasons behind FB policies without any evidence. E.g. the same policy decisions might reflect the FB perception of what its users want to discuss in the light of recent events without it being directed by any government official or consideration of their desires. If they leave the total ban of this organization, people won't get full picture of the war, will decide that FB supports russian information suppression tactics and will be angry at FB.

giuliomagnifico 5y ago
Yes I agree. It’s a very interesting argument, as I’ve been to war in Mosul (Iraq. I’m a reporter) I know very well how the “things” get confused during a civil war, and lots of time the best thing is to choose not to take the best ethical decision but the most correct for that moment only. This doesn’t mean that it should be overall right and also applied in the future, wartimes require special measures unfortunately. And the situation in even worse during a civil war like this one in Europe.
- artem247 5y ago
blablabla123 5y ago
> Upvoting because such stuff needs to be discussed I guess but at this point it's really hard to tell fact from fiction. Already years ago I've read about Neo Nazis in Ukraine in niche publications that sometimes come up with some funny views close to conspiracy theories. (To be fair, The Intercept is not exactly mainstream media either) It's no coincidence there has been a massive wave of media manipulation for more than a decade with Putin now seeming to pick this up. Anyway, FB has manoeuvred itself into an amazingly bad position. They pivoted from personal and recreational content to online news with a mass of people doubting competence and credibility of journalists and publishers. The negative effects are becoming worse and worse. Probably the smartest move for them would be to move away from news and leave it to media outlets.

giuliomagnifico 5y ago

Yes I agree. It’s a very interesting argument, as I’ve been to war in Mosul (Iraq. I’m a reporter) I know very well how the “things” get confused during a civil war, and lots of time the best thing is to choose not to take the best ethical decision but the most correct for that moment only. This doesn’t mean that it should be overall right and also applied in the future, wartimes require special measures unfortunately. And the situation in even worse during a civil war like this one in Europe.

artem247 5y ago

blablabla123 5y ago

> Upvoting because such stuff needs to be discussed I guess but at this point it's really hard to tell fact from fiction. Already years ago I've read about Neo Nazis in Ukraine in niche publications that sometimes come up with some funny views close to conspiracy theories. (To be fair, The Intercept is not exactly mainstream media either) It's no coincidence there has been a massive wave of media manipulation for more than a decade with Putin now seeming to pick this up. Anyway, FB has manoeuvred itself into an amazingly bad position. They pivoted from personal and recreational content to online news with a mass of people doubting competence and credibility of journalists and publishers. The negative effects are becoming worse and worse. Probably the smartest move for them would be to move away from news and leave it to media outlets.