4 ms·

Misleading title and article. Facebook and Instagram are allowing people in countries neighboring Russia to call for violence against Russian who are not civili

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.
concinds 5y ago
"We won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians," says Meta. They define credible as: having two "indicators of credibility", such as location or method. That is a considerably higher bar than for any other group. And that's referring to civilians, not soldiers. In a separate, internal memo, they explicitly say that hate speech and violent speech against Russian civilians is allowed "if the context is the Russian invasion". That's sufficiently vague that the policy allows for dehumanization.
- AA-BA-94-2A-56 5y ago
  > That's sufficiently vague that the policy allows for dehumanization. You're right to be concerned about dehumanisation, and to raise questions about Meta's ability to manage it. However, when you consider that they are only allowing hate speech for the region affected by Russia's war, you'll realise that most of the people venting will either be personally affected or know someone who is. I have to ask; in what way do you think someone could call for the death of Russian civilisans specifically in the context of the Russian invasion? I'm struggling to think of an example to support your argument. Perhaps you will provide one?
throwaway879080 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

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.

concinds 5y ago

"We won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians," says Meta. They define credible as: having two "indicators of credibility", such as location or method. That is a considerably higher bar than for any other group. And that's referring to civilians, not soldiers. In a separate, internal memo, they explicitly say that hate speech and violent speech against Russian civilians is allowed "if the context is the Russian invasion". That's sufficiently vague that the policy allows for dehumanization.

AA-BA-94-2A-56 5y ago
> That's sufficiently vague that the policy allows for dehumanization. You're right to be concerned about dehumanisation, and to raise questions about Meta's ability to manage it. However, when you consider that they are only allowing hate speech for the region affected by Russia's war, you'll realise that most of the people venting will either be personally affected or know someone who is. I have to ask; in what way do you think someone could call for the death of Russian civilisans specifically in the context of the Russian invasion? I'm struggling to think of an example to support your argument. Perhaps you will provide one?

throwaway879080 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]