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

141–150 of 333 posts

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

#141

Post by remarkEon »

javert wrote: post #26
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.

> On a pedantic level Well, if you're going to be pedantic: There's a fundamental distinction, which you're missing, between initiated force and defensive force. When someone robs or murders, that's initiated force. When the police use force to stop a robber or murderer, that's defensive force. A "call to violence" is only applicable to initiated force. For example, if I say, "let's murder Bob," that's a call to viol…

>Calling for a NATO no-fly zone is calling for defensive force, not initiated force, and thus is not a "call to violence."

You do understand what a NFZ in Ukraine is, right? It's not "hey fellas can ya stop flyin here, thanks". It's "we are now firing on all Russian aircraft within the zone, weapons away". Cut to WWIII, and so on.

>I hope you can see how unjust and absurd it would be to call the defense of innocents a "call to violence."

Of course a defensive call to action is a call to violence. This absurdist doublespeak is tuned to redefining words to fit how one views a conflict, and who is the aggressor and who is the agressed.

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

#142

Post by spiderice »

squarefoot wrote: post #140
spiderice wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They still have to buy their hardware in China, or from suppliers who buy in China.

True. The entire world really needs to fix their dependence on China for hardware.

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

#143

Post by cato_the_elder »

delusional wrote: post #94
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...

War makes unlikely alliances. If you're fighting for the existence of your country you're not going to say no to the help of nazis. And if you're using the biggest social media platform on the planet to organize that war, you're going to want your allies on it. What you've just discovered is that a unified policy across the entire world isn't actually the right policy. In one country you may want to ban some stuff yo…

> War makes unlikely alliances.

That is certainly true. There are many examples of that. Israel provided weapons and advisers to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. They even bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor for them. [1] A more widely known example is the alliance between US and the Soviets during the WW2.

> What you've just discovered is that a unified policy across the entire world isn't actually the right policy.

I disagree with that. The ideal "public square" platforms should be neutral. The best policy (which I think will work in almost all cases for general platforms like FB) is to stick to supporting free expression as much as the law permits, don't manipulate people's feeds, and develop tools to let people filter out the content they don't want to see.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Iran–...

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

#144

Post by gruez »

thrixton wrote: post #119

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 nei…

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.

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

#145

Post by squarefoot »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #104
javert wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If Russia starts WW3 they'll be nuked as well. Contrary to popular belief, Putin is all but stupid or crazy, and he'd never put himself and his country in a position to lose everything. If NATO or any other EU country shoots down a Russian plane -in Ukraine- Russians will retaliate -in Ukraine- with conventional weapons. But this time they know the odds might be against them and probably will be more inclined to real negotiations, not the farce they have been conducting until now.

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

#146

Post by WFHRenaissance »

kipchak wrote: post #80
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…

If I'm reading it correctly "violence against Russians and Russian soldiers" seems like it would apply to both civilians and soldiers.

I _feel_ like they're going for politicians when they say "Russians" but :shrug:

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

#147

Post by javert »

FpUser wrote: post #127
djrogers wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only potential caveat is if Russia uses nukes That's a ridiculously huge caveat - especially since the guy in charge appears to be unstable and has already threatened to use them. Triggering Putin would potentially be condemning hundreds of millions of people to death.

It means nothing to keyboard warriors here.

> It means nothing to keyboard warriors here. (entire comment)

This kind of insult (you're referring to me, but have probably misconstrued what I said) is not OK on HN. There is no intellectual content at all in what you said.

Flagged.

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

#148

Post by gruez »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #136
gruez wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> 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 R…

>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#Saud...

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

#149

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

systemvoltage wrote: post #128
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, unwav…

Why such a hostile response? I am trying to have a peaceful discussion. And all those rhetorical questions appear to be strawmaning what I am proposing. Oxymorons are currently present in the way Apple does its PR - no problem with sweatshop labor in China, but they'll never miss a chance to have a political opinion about other things - diversity, BLM, Ukraine, etc. Whatever aligns with their audience.

I'm not trying to champion Apple, far from it, but I can't see how any sort of consistent policy could be defined from those opposing ideals and I wanted to highlight some I saw, especially when the stated goal is to align with core fundamental principles. As stated, those principles seem in opposition to each-other.
Post reply on HN