I "admire" how the western world now is all in in the war against Russia, from tech companies to media to the random person on the Internet and between. You can't find many different opinions on the matter, all the focus against the "crazy Putin" and Russia. I wish our "Elites" learned from their western masters how to take a firm stand for your people war and how those masters will throw the "liberal values" in the nearest bin when it contradicts their interests.
Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook
81–90 of 373 posts
Re: Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook
#82If you need to change your platform's rules for literally every major event (elections, Covid, this war) there is something profoundly wrong both with your rules and your platform. There is tremendous value in having actual principles. So many people either forgotten it or never understood that to begin with.
On the contrary, I think this says less about FB, but more so reflects a hypocrisy in "western principles" that many are probably not self-aware of.
Let's assume for a second, that FB do not relax their rules for this conflict. Then they would have to ban a whole sleuth of Ukrainian accounts, including many government accounts such as Ministry of Defense, and probably even Zelensky. You don't have to stretch your imagination to see what the headlines would look like in that case -- "Facebook bans Ukrainian resistance against Russian aggression" etc. In a sense, FB was a facing a catch-22 situation, where it's just lose-lose for them, and they had to make a call to swallow the "less poisonous" pill.
Contrast this situation with American war efforts in the middle east and Afghanistan over the past 20 years, where they faced no such conundrum.
Re: Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think principles went out the window when both the new generation and journalists decided: "You can't stay still on a moving train." I.e., everything is biased, no one is objective, and no platform can be objective because everything has an implicit position (even no position is a position). In other words, a very postmodern "no objective truth can be obtained" take. So yes, the rational, logical next step is loose…
I find it fascinating that people believe that there was ever an unbiased, objective news media. This literally has never been the case in the total history of the industry. Journalists are paid to contextualize the data they find, not to regurgitate it.
Yes, they were never unbiased or objective, but they would often try to be a bit less biased and a bit objective. Now some journalists openly mock such efforts and see their job as creating a narrative that suits their political agenda.
This is shocking to me and others because the watered down objectivity of the past was still better than nothing.
Re: Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in Russia it's a total clusterfuck at this point. 1) Roscomnadzor bans Twitter in Russia. 2) Russian embassy posts on Twitter claiming Mariupol hospital bombing was faked. It's like: Should we ban Twitter in Russia? Yes. Should we keep posting Russian propaganda on Twitter? Also yes.
It's curious as to why we don't treat western govt / media sources as "propaganda" but everything Russian is. I fully agree with the label, but its not being applied to the west. How long were western media just regurgitating that "biolabs" was "Russian disinformation" and writing "fact checks" which just parrot the official government narrative until they realized the Russians were going to capture them then they ju…
The implication that Ukrainian biolabs were developing bioweapons is Russian disinformation.
There are biolabs in almost every country. Almost every university will have one for example.
https://www.state.gov/the-kremlins-allegations-of-chemical-a... is the full US government statement. Which part do you think is inaccurate?
Re: Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook
#85If you need to change your platform's rules for literally every major event (elections, Covid, this war) there is something profoundly wrong both with your rules and your platform. There is tremendous value in having actual principles. So many people either forgotten it or never understood that to begin with.
On the contrary, I think this says less about FB, but more so reflects a hypocrisy in "western principles" that many are probably not self-aware of. Let's assume for a second, that FB do not relax their rules for this conflict. Then they would have to ban a whole sleuth of Ukrainian accounts, including many government accounts such as Ministry of Defense, and probably even Zelensky. You don't have to stretch your ima…
They could relax their rules to allow for calls to military self-defense in the context of a "military operation" that has been condemned by the UN, while still banning "calls for violence" against Russians. The two are nothing like each other! Self-defense, or "standing one's ground" is not the same as initiating violence.
Re: Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it fascinating that people believe that there was ever an unbiased, objective news media. This literally has never been the case in the total history of the industry. Journalists are paid to contextualize the data they find, not to regurgitate it.
Yes, they were never unbiased or objective, but they would often try to be a bit less biased and a bit objective. Now some journalists openly mock such efforts and see their job as creating a narrative that suits their political agenda. This is shocking to me and others because the watered down objectivity of the past was still better than nothing.
I didn’t grow up in America so this might be different there, but I remember news from my early adult years and they were indeed badly biased. In the past 10 years, two things have changed however, the state media got more powerful and hired a bunch of qualified people, and—more importantly—independent media has proliferated. The media landscape of today is unrecognizable. Accountability hardly existed in the past, but now it does. You can see this by simply comparing the behavior of older politicians who were used to get away with everything and still continue their corrupt behavior, which today they are exposed doing all the time.
If anything—at least where I’m from—the news is still biases (always has been) but this bias which used to favor the rich and the powerful, has radically shifted to favor ordinary people. The news of the past that I remembered were actively—and probably knowingly—biased in favor of their stakeholders. Today they don’t, or at least not nearly to the same degree.
Re: Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think principles went out the window when both the new generation and journalists decided: "You can't stay still on a moving train." I.e., everything is biased, no one is objective, and no platform can be objective because everything has an implicit position (even no position is a position). In other words, a very postmodern "no objective truth can be obtained" take. So yes, the rational, logical next step is loose…
I find it fascinating that people believe that there was ever an unbiased, objective news media. This literally has never been the case in the total history of the industry. Journalists are paid to contextualize the data they find, not to regurgitate it.
> Journalists are paid to contextualize the data they find, not to regurgitate it.
Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding.
'Vaccines contain Mercury' and 'this meal contains Chlorine' is correct information - there is an atom of mercury in the molecule of RNA and an atom of chlorine in table salt.
Re: Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook
#88If you need to change your platform's rules for literally every major event (elections, Covid, this war) there is something profoundly wrong both with your rules and your platform. There is tremendous value in having actual principles. So many people either forgotten it or never understood that to begin with.
Facebook is just being truthful to what always was their guiding principle, drive engagement, and make money out of it.
Re: Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook
#89Am I right to assume what Meta would adhere to the same principles in any other similar case? Eg (countries and nationalities are work of fiction and are the products of the author's imagination): $string = 'Two weeks into $country1's war in $country2, a Meta spokesperson said on Thursday the company had temporarily eased its rules for political speech, allowing posts such as "death to the $nationality invaders," alt…
> would adhere to the same principles in any other similar case? Consistency isn’t the paramount principle in a moral system. If you have a compulsion for kicking babies, controlling that impulse most of the time is better than going hog wild on a kindergarten because you lost control once. Facebook is an awful company. But it’s doing the right thing here. That action commendable, even if it’s doer is usually not.
'Consistency isn’t the paramount principle in a moral system.'
I think the argument is different- if your moral system contradicts itself logically, it's likely it's hypocritical or self-serving
Re: Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it fascinating that people believe that there was ever an unbiased, objective news media. This literally has never been the case in the total history of the industry. Journalists are paid to contextualize the data they find, not to regurgitate it.
Yes, they were never unbiased or objective, but they would often try to be a bit less biased and a bit objective. Now some journalists openly mock such efforts and see their job as creating a narrative that suits their political agenda. This is shocking to me and others because the watered down objectivity of the past was still better than nothing.
I think that part of the problem is that people confuse journalism, which is what reporters at newspapers and people in the field do, and editorialism, which is what normally happens on Fox and CNN.
Editorials are not journalism, but when the journalism disagrees with people who are accustomed to the nature of the editorials they enjoy, they then see bias on the part of the journalists instead of the commentators.