251–260 of 373 posts
(Of course, FB's specific action the FB-Kremlin exchange here are rather nonsensical and even comical, compared to the usual proceedings.)
Russia also legalized piracy against unfriendly countries, surely this investigation will lead to substantive outcomes!
You might want to try finding sources for that. Other than neighbor HN comments. And differing from ‘a Duma member proposed that’.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not even close - look up COINTELPRO and how many of the letters that were sent by the discoverers of that information ACTUALLY made it, let alone how few that did make it actually got published. Hint : very few. The media has always had to kowtow to some degree to local authority, and there is always the element of ‘the truth we choose to believe’ (or are being told to believe) being published over harder reality. Th…
COINTELPRO was a thing, yes, but now almost all news is manipulated. Then stuff related to those stories was, big difference. >The media has always had to kowtow to some degree to local authority, Yes, that's what I mean, to what degree? That degree is much greater now than it was in the past, except the one doing the manipulation isn't necessarily the government.
Do you have any links to facts that might support those assertions?
If not, I rest my case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who get on Putin's bad side have a history of ending up with things like polonium and nerve agents inside their bodies, even when living in western countries. Bombing facebook would likely be further than even Russia is willing to go, but I wouldn't put it past them to poison their head of PR or something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Skri…
I expect that if Russia poisoned Zuckerberg there would be a lot more backlash from the West than in the cases you linked. Maybe even outright war. Otherwise, it would mean the entire world should permanently live in fear of Putin, and that sounds worse even than nuclear winter.
he is pretty old by now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is false https://www.kp.ru/daily/27375.5/4557218/
That moment when one refers to fcking KP to prove that something is false. LMAO I hope that you are kidding. Otherwise, you are a joke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not true. Please try to be careful not to unintentionally spread propaganda. > allowing posts such as "death to the Russian invaders," although it would not allow calls for violence against Russian civilians. There's a big difference between self defense against an aggressive war and calls for genocide. Targeting invaders from a country's armed forces is not the same as targeting that country's civilians or l…
You may use Meta's platforms to call for the death of this specific list of approved people/groups only. Any other calls for death are not allowed, although the approved list may change at Meta's sole discretion at any time.
Tech companies are making themselves active participants in conflicts involving powerful countries. Sooner or later, one of those countries is going to reach out and strike back in the physical world. It's just a matter of time. When it was little nudges in color revolutions in relatively weak countries, there was not much to worry about. Now? They're playing with fire and the tech folks doesn't seem they have a clue…
> Tech companies are making themselves active participants in conflicts involving powerful countries Same can be said about media companies, banks, car manufacturers, luxury brands, fast foods, etc.
No, that's wrong. Russia is wrong. Limiting Russia's ability to invade its neighbors isn't being "biased" in a discussion about different perspectives, it's doing the right thing.
At some point, there's a line drawn at the limit to tolerance. And Russia literally rolled tanks over it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who get on Putin's bad side have a history of ending up with things like polonium and nerve agents inside their bodies, even when living in western countries. Bombing facebook would likely be further than even Russia is willing to go, but I wouldn't put it past them to poison their head of PR or something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Skri…
I expect that if Russia poisoned Zuckerberg there would be a lot more backlash from the West than in the cases you linked. Maybe even outright war. Otherwise, it would mean the entire world should permanently live in fear of Putin, and that sounds worse even than nuclear winter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies at that scale can easily show different posts in different regions. It requires principles to remain a “natural resource” but it’s probably the most moral position to take if you believe your service helps better humanity (whether or not fb does that is a different discussion).
I am going to remove morality from the discussion temporarily, and instead talk about how practical that is. A post breaks a law in 100 countries, but does not break the law in 20 countries. Should all 100 countries file their own removal process? Should there be an army of reviewers who are knowledgeable about all laws reviewing all posts? What about that confusion that different people from different regions are se…