Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 333 posts

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#101

Post by systemvoltage »

barbacoa wrote: post #21

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-ba...

Surprised to see no talk about revenue. I am highly cynical about it - This hate that we're talking about sells. It sells like hotcakes. The entire world is on a binge with it.

The other kind of hate that gets banned brings no revenue and upsets the core audience by the means of PR damage of the platform.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#102

Post by delusional »

rosndo wrote: post #63
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah no. Nazis are bad. But it’s okay to praise Nazis for doing good things. This is perfectly internally consistent.

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.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#103

Post by stjohnswarts »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #24
Manuel_D wrote: post #5

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.

"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.

That is just an opinion. An often under-informed opinion, and I certainly hope NATO is not dumb enough to put in a no-fly zone in a non-NATO country. However that's not the same as calling for assasination of a country and its people. I have met many wonderful Russian people and I wish them all long and happy lives; obviously not Putin though.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#104

Post by stjohnswarts »

javert wrote: post #45
hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

It's not a misnomer. And, asserting NATO air dominance in Ukraine is easy and guaranteed to succeed with de minimis cost (in lives and/or military equipment). Whereas creating land dominance with tanks is another matter. A no-fly zone is an easy win for NATO and would make Ukrainian civilians safe from aerial bombardment.

If NATO shoots down a Russian plane in Ukraine it is most likely WW3. I don't see how anyone can see it any other way.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#105

Post by adamrezich »

jfengel wrote: post #86
adamrezich wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> 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.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#106

Post by djrogers »

javert wrote: post #45
hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

It's not a misnomer. And, asserting NATO air dominance in Ukraine is easy and guaranteed to succeed with de minimis cost (in lives and/or military equipment). Whereas creating land dominance with tanks is another matter. A no-fly zone is an easy win for NATO and would make Ukrainian civilians safe from aerial bombardment.

a) There's been very little aerial bombardment to date - tons of missiles, rockets, and artillery though - none of which respect no-fly zones. b) Do you know how that mad man in charge of Russia would respond if a US jet shot down one of his planes? I don't, but the worst case scenario is pretty darned bad.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#108

Post by FpUser »

EGreg wrote: post #42
johndfsgdgdfg wrote: post #28

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.

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 unapologetic…

>"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.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#109

Post by gruez »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #65
LittleMoveBig wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#110

Post by delusional »

paxys wrote: post #13

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 ha…

> 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.

That's a false dichotomy. There's room for reasonable discussion and moderate legislation in between that 100% and 0% control.

Post reply on HN