You are correct. "We won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians," says Meta. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/11/faceboo

You are correct. "We won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians," says Meta. 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-... 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. This is already having a real-world impact, even in countries where Facebook explicitly says all hate speech against Russians, even soldiers, is still banned (obviously, as always, enforcement is lacking). See the real-world impact here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/07/antirussian-hate-putin-europe/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/07/antirussian-... --- It's also fascinating that you are being accused of spreading misinformation for telling the truth about what Facebook said. Some can say Facebook's statement is vague, but these are PR professionals who can certainly be as vague or as precise as they want to be. It highlights the future we are heading towards, if those who want unbridled corporate power to "ban misinformation" end up having their way. The statement Meta made yesterday would get memory-holed the next day.