4 ms·

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 ap

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
- causality0 5y ago
  This was directly addressed. 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. It's not permissible when referring to anyone but Russian soldiers actively involved in the invasion, not even ones who were involved but are no longer. I don't know how the meaning could be any more explicit.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > I don't know how the meaning could be any more explicit. The exact wording in the first paragraph was: >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 Which would suggest call for violence towards "Russians" (presumably all russians, not just russian military personnel) would be allowed. That said, the article was later edited and clarified that the exemption did not apply to russian civilians, so the question is largely moot.

4 ms·

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 ap

by causality0 5y ago

gruez 5y ago
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 5y ago
- causality0 5y ago
  This was directly addressed. 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. It's not permissible when referring to anyone but Russian soldiers actively involved in the invasion, not even ones who were involved but are no longer. I don't know how the meaning could be any more explicit.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > I don't know how the meaning could be any more explicit. The exact wording in the first paragraph was: >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 Which would suggest call for violence towards "Russians" (presumably all russians, not just russian military personnel) would be allowed. That said, the article was later edited and clarified that the exemption did not apply to russian civilians, so the question is largely moot.