51–60 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article you linked in your comment
Ah yes, that was from the email that they sent to moderators, not part of the (original) public statement (unless I'm misreading). But yes thank you, that's good to point out
Facebook allowing targeted calls for violence to one side of a conflict only had a lot to do with this decision.
They may not kill you.
This is not a disagreement, twist, two parties having their point of view and stuff that we have grown up with, this is an unjustified war of aggression. The only argument we should agree to hear from the Russian side is how they will disprove the accusations of a war of aggression.
Hopefully we can soon get back to behaving like civilized countries, and start the deputinization process of Russia.
Facebook allowing targeted calls for violence to one side of a conflict only had a lot to do with this decision.
Unfortunately, regardless of any philosophy on morality, it is simply unrealistic to expect the citizens of a nation being invaded - a word applicable here without even the merest qualification - to not call for the violent repulsion of the invader, loudly and in great numbers, regardless of how "good" or "bad" the invader's justification is. Edit: To reconnect my point to the topic - the weight of millions of simult…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reality is a lot narrower than you're implying, however: “We are issuing a spirit-of-the-policy allowance to allow T1 violent speech that would otherwise be removed under the hate speech policy when: (a) targeting Russian soldiers, except prisoners of war, or (b) targeting Russians where it’s clear that the context is the Russian invasion of Ukraine (eg content mentions the invasion, self-defense, etc),” ... Meta…
the quote makes it clear that FB is enabling threats against the Russian military (and Russians in the context of war), which would naturally cause the Russian govt to classify them as a hostile actor. the Azov movement is the neo-Nazi organization, which is clear from reporting prior to 2022: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary-... https://jpost.com/Diaspora/US-lifts-ban-on-funding-neo-Nazi-.…
Russia has neo-nazis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group ), islamists ( Kadyrov's thugs ) and they're planning on having al-Assad's soldiers over to slaughter Ukrainians. The Azov guys are at least doing something good for once: defending people.
Facebook allowing targeted calls for violence to one side of a conflict only had a lot to do with this decision.
Unfortunately, regardless of any philosophy on morality, it is simply unrealistic to expect the citizens of a nation being invaded - a word applicable here without even the merest qualification - to not call for the violent repulsion of the invader, loudly and in great numbers, regardless of how "good" or "bad" the invader's justification is. Edit: To reconnect my point to the topic - the weight of millions of simult…
Facebook allowing targeted calls for violence to one side of a conflict only had a lot to do with this decision.
I hope facebook's decision to allow calls for violence against the russian military makes it clear how ridiculous it is to try to define hate speech. Further, it should also be clear that what is censored on facebook will always change with the whims of facebook executives and will never be properly defined.
Before we all pile on Russia, if you aren't aware of the rule change that FB made to allow violent statements against Russians (but not against any other group), you should learn about that. The Moscow Court: > A Moscow court on Monday banned Facebook and Instagram as "extremist" organizations, after authorities accused U.S. tech giant Meta of tolerating "Russophobia" during the conflict in Ukraine. And that is at le…
> allow violent statements against Russians Nonsense. It's against Russian invaders, which makes complete sense. When they come in to bomb schools and maternity wards how else are you going to stop them without killing them? The Russians are acting like victims even when they're Nazi invaders.
Are you saying that "Russian invaders" aren't "Russians" ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FB did not "play into their hands". Facebook made a sane decision that most corporations are incapable of making. You don't want to ban Ukrainians for talking about killing Russian soldiers, it should be encouraged.
Would you want to ban Afghans from talking about killing American soldiers?
Before we all pile on Russia, if you aren't aware of the rule change that FB made to allow violent statements against Russians (but not against any other group), you should learn about that. The Moscow Court: > A Moscow court on Monday banned Facebook and Instagram as "extremist" organizations, after authorities accused U.S. tech giant Meta of tolerating "Russophobia" during the conflict in Ukraine. And that is at le…
FB did not "play into their hands". Facebook made a sane decision that most corporations are incapable of making. You don't want to ban Ukrainians for talking about killing Russian soldiers, it should be encouraged.
Before we all pile on Russia, if you aren't aware of the rule change that FB made to allow violent statements against Russians (but not against any other group), you should learn about that. The Moscow Court: > A Moscow court on Monday banned Facebook and Instagram as "extremist" organizations, after authorities accused U.S. tech giant Meta of tolerating "Russophobia" during the conflict in Ukraine. And that is at le…
Calling for death to Russian invaders or dictator Putin is not russophobia, so that whole argument falls flat right there. If the distinction is unclear to you, here's a quick tip: if somebody hates you for what you are, that's racism (or some other form of deplorable hatred). If someone hates you for what you do, that's not racism.
> If the distinction is unclear to you, here's a quick tip: if somebody hates you for what you are, that's racism (or some other form of deplorable hate).
What if somebody hates you for something that another person of your race did, but that you personally didn't do, especially if you personally radically oppose it? Is that racism?