19 ms·

Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

• adamrezich 5y ago
  maybe it's time to pump the brakes a bit
  • Johnny555 5y ago
    Which brakes? Russia's attack on Ukraine? Sure, let's stop or slow that down, but how?
    • LittleMoveBig 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        > 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 5y ago
          > 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 5y ago
          • throw_m239339 5y ago
            • gruez 5y ago
              • throw_m239339 5y ago
                > 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 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.
                • dang 5y ago
                  Flamewar comments like this are not ok here. Personal attacks are particularly unwelcome. I realize emotions are understandably high, but you can't post like this to HN and we ban accounts that keep doing it, so please don't do it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
                • gruez 5y ago
                  >My bad, I didn't know Islam was a country with a government that decided to send tanks and jets to invade and bomb a foreign country... /s Saudi Arabia is a state sponsor of terrorism[1]. Would you say that "Saudiphobia" would be "all insignificant" and "least of people's worries"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saud...
      • Melatonic 5y ago
        Plot twist: There is a Russian Blue Kitten controlling Putin all along :-)
    • adamrezich 5y ago
      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 5y ago
      • jfengel 5y ago
        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 5y ago
          > 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. it's not as though I didn't understand what was being communicated.
          • jfengel 5y ago
            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.
    • mardifoufs 5y ago
      Whataboutism. Focus on the current issue of Facebook enabling hate
      • xdennis 5y ago
        It's not whataboutism when it's the literal cause.
  • throw_m239339 5y ago
    Yes, maybe it's time for Russia to leave Ukraine alone. That's the simplest solution.
• qiskit 5y ago
  That's cute. Zuckerburg is going to control our "2 minute hate". We've always been at war with eurasia. And people wonder why Russia, China, etc block facebook. That more nations haven't banned facebook really makes you wonder at the quality of leadership in these countries.
• 28304283409234 5y ago
  Both the Reuters as well as the HN title flip the actual statements of Meta. Article specifically states that it differentiates between "Russians", and "Russian Military/Soldiers". > "The Hate Speech policy continues to prohibit attacks on Russians," the email stated.
  • darebak 5y ago
    So those that spread hate against Russians can now just say they are calling for violence against the Russian government. It's a cop out.
• throwmeariver1 5y ago
  Hate sure is paying off for Facebook in the last 6 years.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• igravious 5y ago
  Unless I'm mistaken, I'm not seeing any discussion here on how to remedy this situation. Given that this site is a prime nexus for tech folks this lack of discussion is disappointing.
• jka 5y ago
  https://archive.ph/TV8DV 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."
• LittleMoveBig 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    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.
• thinkingemote 5y ago
  Hate is hate. Morality is absolute, not relative.
  • numeromancer 5y ago
    "All hate is hate, but some hate is more hate than others." -- Hypocrite Valley
    • systemvoltage 5y ago
      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.
      • SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        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 5y ago
          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 5y ago
            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?
• Manuel_D 5y ago
  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.
  • hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    "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.
    • pmalynin 5y ago
      Not a good reason
      • vetinari 5y ago
        "not starting the ww3" is not a good reason?
        • pmalynin 5y ago
          We need to get rid of the illusion that WW3 isn’t happening already. I would rather die standing up for my freedom so that me, my family, my children — you — can live in a free world with no warmongering dictators, than cower and live in fear, which the West is collectively doing. So yes, it is not a good reason.
          • unmole 5y ago
            > We need to get rid of the illusion that WW3 isn’t happening already. Checks outside. No, WW3 definitely isn't already happening. > with no warmongering dictators So, once Putin is dealt with, you're headed off to depose the Saudi and Emirati regimes?
• im3w1l 5y ago
  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 5y ago
  "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 5y ago
    Why is it happening on a social network that an American tech company is running and moderating?
    • tablespoon 5y ago
      >> 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.
    • diordiderot 5y ago
      Why does it matter
  • hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    > 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.
• paxys 5y ago
  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.
  • gruez 5y ago
    >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 5y ago
      No
      • Invictus0 5y ago
        What about "Let's give all the Russians wet willies?"
        • awb 5y ago
          There’s no clear line on free speech so we could do endless hypotheticals, but the line has never been at 0% or 100% of all possible speech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... > Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Your hypothetical isn’t included in any of the current exemptions to free speech protection.
• rvz 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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.
• tharne 5y ago
  What could possibly go wrong?
  • mountainb 5y ago
    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 5y ago
    Let's do something about this. What should we do?
    • gruez 5y ago
      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.
      • igravious 5y ago
        Okay, but how do we get big tech to adhere to these sorts of rules.
      • awb 5y ago
        FYI in the US free speech has some exemptions in addition to commercial speech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... > Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.
• Thorentis 5y ago
  Ah yes, the double standards continue to show themselves. We can hate whoever the tech giants say we can hate.
  • nathanaldensr 5y ago
    If there was any doubt about the maliciousness of media and social media companies and actors, that should be long gone for anyone paying attention with a critical eye. The hypocrisy either leads to realization that one has been played all along, or severe cognitive dissonance.
  • yywwbbn 5y ago
    They seem to be merely reacting to what general public opinion is (I assume their goal is to keeping their platform relevant rather than to shift what people think). If there was a widespread negative reaction to what they are doing in the west (or amongst their target audience)I’m sure they’d quickly change their policy.
    • adamrezich 5y ago
      you have the causality backwards
• colpabar 5y ago
  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!
  • nradov 5y ago
    I don't think they ever claimed to be unbiased.
  • xdennis 5y ago
    It has nothing to do with the US. > apply to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine Facebook is just recognizing the facts on the ground.
  • djrogers 5y ago
    It's never been "US Approved" - it's been what's approved by one group of people in the US...
  • skhr0680 5y ago
    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”
• bjt2n3904 5y ago
  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 ™!
• barbacoa 5y ago
  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-battalion-russia/ https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-ba...
  • andybak 5y ago
    > boarders I think you meant "borders".
    • barbacoa 5y ago
      edited
  • bjt2n3904 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      Ah no. Nazis are bad. But it’s okay to praise Nazis for doing good things. This is perfectly internally consistent.
      • delusional 5y ago
        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 5y ago
          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."
• math_denial 5y ago
  I'm so glad US private tech corporations tell me what to think.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • awb 5y ago
    Are they? Or are they telling you what you can/can’t share on their platform?
    • jka 5y ago
      Doesn't it become difficult to tell the difference when the message from the platform is approximately: "rage is permitted in the direction of foreign nationals from these two nations from 9am to 9pm tomorrow"?
      • awb 5y ago
        No, it just makes me think I don’t understand their policy. I don’t suddenly start thinking thoughts of rage only between 9am and 9pm.
        • jka 5y ago
          I don't really understand the policy either. I'll respond again tomorrow during a scheduled "thoughtful response time window".
          • jka 5y ago
            Nope, I'm still baffled. I get the sense it might make some kind of sense looking back retrospectively after a few further events play out, but at the moment this continues to seem like a bizarre situation.
  • ahahahahah 5y ago
    I, too, am only able to think about things I post on Facebook.
• johndfsgdgdfg 5y ago
  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.
  • EGreg 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      >"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.
  • spiderice 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      They still have to buy their hardware in China, or from suppliers who buy in China.
      • spiderice 5y ago
        True. The entire world really needs to fix their dependence on China for hardware.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• ronnier 5y ago
  Close your facebook (and whatsapp, insta, etc) account and move on and encourage others to do the same.
  • ejb999 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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.
      • nathanaldensr 5y ago
        I've never had a Facebook or Instagram account for this very reason.
• hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    >> but I can't believe he could be that stupid. He is that stupid....and evil.
  • slig 5y ago
    He's anything but stupid. >"They trust me — dumb fucks"
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• Kharvok 5y ago
  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.
  • xdennis 5y ago
    > They are no longer un-biased parties. No one should be un-biased about the war crimes being committed by Russians in Ukraine! Where is your humanity?
  • awb 5y ago
    > We shouldn't have private tech enforcing state wishes. You think the US government is asking Facebook to make this decision?
• IAmWorried 5y ago
  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?
  • xdennis 5y ago
    No. What's wrong with you? Russians are murdering civilians. How can you stop them without killing them?
  • alar44 5y ago
    • SllX 5y ago
      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 5y ago
  • oversocialized 5y ago
  • lamp987 5y ago
    that the moral rules of liberalism are one big lie
  • kderbyma 5y ago
    Facebook is dead. Zucked up big time...I don't look at fuck up and ask why they are moral failures....I assume that's their character.
• mrtksn 5y ago
  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-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/?sh=41d3b5ae197c https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...
  • hoffs 5y ago
    • mrtksn 5y ago
      Why don't you provide some arguments instead? That's seriously low quality comment right there that doesn't amount to anything other than a personal attack. This shouldn't have place in HN.
      • xdennis 5y ago
        Your initial comment doesn't make any sense. Why would Facebook being American have anything to do with anything? It's a natural right of people to defend themselves and that requires killing invaders. There is nothing wrong with people doing this or discussing this on any platform.
        • 5y ago
• atlantas 5y ago
  "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 https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1501990346170978304
• dirtyid 5y ago
  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.
• usui 5y ago
  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.
• stjohnswarts 5y ago
  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 5y ago
  So much for Facebooks claim that the userbase is too big to effectively moderate
• thrixton 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    Even more of a massive difference calling for the death of Vladimir Putin in Russia...
  • gruez 5y ago
    Did you miss the previous paragraph? >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 People here are upset by "russians", which could conceivably mean russian civilians.
    • ahahahahah 5y ago
      From Meta: > "We still won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians"
    • MikusR 5y ago
      >in the context of the Ukraine invasion
• t0bia_s 5y ago
  So hate speech is now new trend? Or prepare for war? Where are so called the regulations of extremism?
  • xdennis 5y ago
    It's defensive speech. None of this would have happened if Russians didn't invade a sovereign country and murdered thousands of civilians.
  • gruez 5y ago
    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
    • t0bia_s 5y ago
      Those trends could make social justice warriors quite schizophrenic. One year against hate, another fully approve, because... It's like that stupid joke... "I hate racism and Russians (or whatever)."
• supergirl 5y ago
  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.
• swamp-agr 5y ago
  Just a kindly reminder about filtering out FB/Instagram/Whatsapp on your device or even home network: https://pastebin.com/FAV2f9eA https://pastebin.com/FAV2f9eA
• mzs 5y ago
  Mark Zuckerburg is a weak leader.
• stunt 5y ago
  Divide and conquer (democratically)!
• daenz 5y ago
  This should solidify in everyone's mind, that the push to censor speech, no matter what cause-of-the-week reason is given, is fundamentally about attaining power over a weapon that can be used when it suits you.
• daenz 5y ago
  >Emails also showed that Meta would allow praise of the right-wing Azov battalion, which is normally prohibited, in a change first reported by The Intercept. So it's ok to praise literal neo-Nazis now, as long as it lines up with business and political interests? Someone less cynical than me, please explain.
  • xdennis 5y ago
    And Allies were friendly with the genocidal "Uncle Joe Stalin". > If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." -- Churchill Those neo nazis are defending Ukraine. What are you proposing? Should they surrender and let Russians do another Holodomor?
  • diordiderot 5y ago
    American legislatures are full of neo-nazi's
• Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  At what point does a tech company CEO or other high ranking official get murdered by a state actor for this type of thing? Yemen might not be willing (or able) to reach out across the world to murder a civilian business leader but states on the level of Russia can make "accidents" happen.
• tonfreed 5y ago
  Big Brother would like to invite all outer party members to the two minutes hate
• tpoacher 5y ago
  I've already seen this move compared to the "Two Minutes Hate" from 1984, and I have to agree, it's not that far off tbh.
  • xdennis 5y ago
    With the "minor difference" that Ukrainians are fighting totalitarianism.
• BaseballPhysics 5y ago
  Headline has been editorialized, original is: "Facebook temporarily allows posts on Ukraine war calling for violence against invading Russians or Putin's death" The lead paragraph goes on to say: > 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 (emphasis mine) And Meta stated in the article that: > We still won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians, I'm not saying I agree or disagree but the title should be corrected as this nuance is important, as it indicates generic calls for violence against any and all Russians is still not acceptable.
• kart23 5y ago
  I actually thought this was an onion article at first until I saw the reuters logo. This shit is depressing.
• zoomablemind 5y ago
  There is no point in calling for violence on social media against anyone, the Russian people including. It may feel liberating for some to post such calls, but the actual killing is happening right now on the real ground, not virtual. This is what needs to stop! Channeling the anger and helplessness against the aggressor into the hate is not making people stronger and is not going to stop the aggression. If anything, expressing your own thoughts and feelings about the current events and how they affect your daily lives could be not only a way to cope with this crisis, but also a way to document this uneasy and fearful time for the future self and others. Posts, tweets etc. describing our individual and collective human experience of this is what may eventualy help find a way out of this nightmare, not the hate.
  • shmobot 5y ago
    I genuinely wonder if such kumbaya rhetoric stays the same once the person actually experiences the bombing of his own house and see people around him heart or dead. Or just forced to leave his own home abandoning everything behind. Watching closely Russian politics for the last 20 years, the one thing they do perfectly is use this kindness and tolerance of the West against them. Once in house the authorities repress everything that is democratic, decent, free and different, they demand the outside world to stick to their values to the letter, ousting every little deviation from it as the West hypocrisy. And then using it to further convince his own people that the West is rotten. You can't win the fight if the other side always plays dirty. I believe this is more than just Ukraine-Russia conflict, this is the Cold war that actually never ended.
    • zoomablemind 5y ago
      No kumbaya singing here. Quite the opposite. People in Russian govt., army, and media who are responsible for planning, authorizing, executing, and justifying this barbaric aggression against Ukraine should be tried as war criminals. Just as the people of the Russian Federation should bear responsibility for condoning and rationalizing these actions. The rift between people of the Russian Federation (Belarus too) and Ukraine is already ripped in millions of hearts which will likely remain unbridgeable for the forseeable future. However, for any justice to take place, the accounts should be collected of what happened and how people's lives were affected. That's why a hateful post by itself may be enough for someone to channel the anger and grief, but its effect would be a lot more meaningful, if the personal experiences are recounted instead. Also, many people's daily lives, I'm sure, are touched by these events. Many may feel anxiety and horror even though they may not be directly related to Ukraine or Russia. Hate by itself will not express this. Yet documented, it is another statement to count towards those who perpertrated these crimes. The world has been through this before, yet here we go again!
• Ice_cream_suit 5y ago
  Sadly, being anti-Russian has become the new green. Russian's are humans too and deserve as much respect and consideration as every other nationality. Remember, next time your race / religion / sexual orientation/ nationality might be the one being demonised, simply because someone powerful can make money out of having the masses hate you. Resist the urge to give into mindless hatred and jingoism.
  • Gravyness 5y ago
    You mean the actions of a single person in power does not reflect 100% of the population of a country? Carefull, next you'll be telling me to think for myself or something!
    • xdennis 5y ago
      Putin would not be doing this if he didn't have wide support for killing Ukrainians. The vast majority of Russians support the war.
    • ecf 5y ago
      If it were _only_ a single person, then it would be trivial to stop said person. Russian support for the war in Ukraine is a whole lot more commin than you think.
  • yywwbbn 5y ago
    The Russian people (unlike most other people in history who were targets of ethnic hatred) have the full control to stop this, though. I don’t think any Russians who have declared their opposition to their current government are explicitly targeted. And it’s doubtful that most western people could easily tell a Russian and an Ukrainian apart. So I fail to see the ethnic/racial component here and I think it’s perfectly legitimate to discriminate people based on their political views in certain cases (supporting an unprovoked war of aggression by a less democratic country against a more democratic one (however flawed) is definitely one of them). If you equate the Russian people and the Russian government with all of it’s supporters (explicit and implicit ones) that’s on you..
• mateo1 5y ago
  I'm trying to think of something constructive to say, but all I can give is disappointed "wow...". We truly live in a post-sarcasm world. Not even the fucking onion could make this shit up. Perhaps next week will be followed by headlines like "Ethnic cleansing environmentally friendly, scientists conclude", "Did Hitler give a bad name to holocausts?" and a few extra "Why a nuclear war isn't going to be this bad".
• verisimi 5y ago
  Are We The Baddies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JOpPNra4bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JOpPNra4bw 2 mins of hate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk
  • xdennis 5y ago
    Good videos. Send them to the invaders.
• M1rco 5y ago
  Can we argue that social media Facebook/Twitter and Co becomes the most effective weapon ever ? I mean, you can keep the population highly motivated, you can shift the perception of war. Right now even people returning to Ukraine for fighting, I think it is highly driven by social media. If the answer is yes,could we conclude that most of the war related content is not really controlled by Facebook and rather by the military?
• AA-BA-94-2A-56 5y ago
  Misleading title and article. Facebook and Instagram are allowing people in countries neighboring Russia to call for violence against Russian who are not civilians. "We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians,” Meta said in a statement." Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/11/facebook-and-instagram-let-users-call-for-death-to-russian-soldiers-over-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/11/facebook-... This article from Reuters is at best clickbait, and at worse Russian pro-war propeganda. People are eating this stuff up because they have a hate-boner for progressives, wokeism, and Facebook. If this confirms your biases too well, it might be a good idea to cross-examine. Edit: When Meta actually allows calls for violence against Russian civilisans, I will be the first to complain. After all, I am Russian by blood.
  • mardifoufs 5y ago
    Why did they both say "Russians" and Russian Soldiers " then? They made the distinction and then included both. It's hard to take to blame people for thinking that basically means civilians too when they explicitly didn't just limit it to Russian soldiers. It's such an obviously ambiguous statement that was not even needed in the first place. But yeah I'm sure Meta will be able to verify the military status of everyone that's being threatened or mobbed on Facebook.
    • AA-BA-94-2A-56 5y ago
      > But yeah I'm sure Meta will be able to verify the military status of everyone that's being threatened or mobbed on Facebook. You're straw-manning my argument. It's pretty obvious when someone says, 'death to the Russian invaders' that they mean Russian soldiers or Russians, specifically in the context of invading. Also this change is only for the regions close to Ukraine. I personally would feel strongly if my neighbouring countries started getting invaded for no reason as well. If Meta don't relax the rules, it's likely they'll have to ban a lot of regular people from those countries. Russia invaded a democracy. People nearby are going to be affected by it personally. They are going to have very strong emotions about it. They should be allowed to vent those emotions online without worrying about getting censored or banned for it.
• kkfx 5y ago
  IMVHO that's *alone* it's a proof that actual narrative "Ukraine is the democratic invaded country and Russian the dictatorship invading it" is just propaganda, so *far from being true*. I have not much sympathy for dictators in general, but the fact that's Putin is a dictator does not means the others are good and democratic people and that's *must be* learnt for the sake of our democracies because actually our own propaganda sound exactly like Chinese one, no more "news", no more "truth", no more "debate", just single-party official directive. In China the single party is formal, have uniforms and a flag, here it's anonymous suit and tie, no flags, but the rest is exactly the same.
• charlieyu1 5y ago
  They have allowed this long ago. Chinese trolls sending death threats to Hong Kong protestors in 2019. Meta really have no moral grounds on this.