To be fair Facebook products ban and censor based on ideology, which is pretty extremist in the traditional (say, 10 years ago) point of view.
A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations
61–70 of 121 posts
Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I never said it was russophobia. that was a quote from the court. > 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?
Yes, that's racism. But also yes, it's easy to imagine situations where the distinction isn't that trivial anymore.
Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Then the citizens of Donetsk should be able to call for violence against the Ukranians invading their country.
How can Ukraine invade their own country?
Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...change that FB made to allow violent statements against Russians. Yeah, that's not what happened. Not sure what your deal is, but you yourself know that's not what happened given your own quote.
Are soldiers in the Russian army not Russians? Do you consider members of your country's army to be fellow citizens of your country? Or do you think of them as different?
Let's imagine the issue is about gay people who murder their partners. Reframing it as "against gay people" might be technically true, but factually incorrect.
Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...change that FB made to allow violent statements against Russians. Yeah, that's not what happened. Not sure what your deal is, but you yourself know that's not what happened given your own quote.
Are soldiers in the Russian army not Russians? Do you consider members of your country's army to be fellow citizens of your country? Or do you think of them as different?
Your sophistry fools no one.
Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-.…
Not walking meekly into the gas chamber is a hostile action according to the Russians. 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.
>The Azov guys are at least doing something good for once
It looks like Putin called them out early on in the conflict (Feb 25) so I believe their presence is doing more harm than good
>Russian President Vladimir Putin calls on the Ukrainian army to overthrow the country’s leadership whom he described as “terrorists” and “a gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis.”
https://timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/putin-calls-on-ukra...
Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
The original articles were based on internal emails that Reuters obtained and published without any comment or public statement.
Ah interesting, thank you, I was wondering why the original was impossible to find. I'm going to verify this and then I'll update my original post with this info cause IMHO that's quite relevant.
Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
GTFO, there is tons of Russian propaganda on FB, including fake shit but some Russian trolls get upset when social media and moderators remove provable false things.
Are you sure you're responding to the right comment? The OP was referring to Facebook allowing calls for violence against Russians. (Is that fake news?) Is your argument that Facebook doing that played no part in Russia's decision?
Responding to someones murderous actions is not violence- it's self defense.
Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations
#69Earlier 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…
Where did that quote come from? I know that FB took some flack for their rule change and issued a second statement on it that walked things back a bit. Is your quote from that?
Just out of curiosity (I'm a non-native speaker):
Is there a difference between flak and flack? Are these regional variants, maybe a US/UK thing? Would you use either, depending on exact context (literal flak-cannon vs "taking flack" phrasal verb)?