Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations

#91

Post by giaour »

freedomben wrote: post #82
giaour wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're trying to unfairly paint Facebook as having crossed a Rubicon with this decision. If the rules banned any exhortation to or glorification of violence, recruiting ads for the armed forces would have never been permitted. If Facebook forced itself to be blind to the difference between criminal violence and acts of war, Al Qaeda, Isis, and extra-legal militia groups would have been allowed to advocate for their v…

> You're trying to unfairly paint Facebook as having crossed a Rubicon with this decision. No, I'm not, and frankly I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. My personal opinion is that FB made a good decision, and I support it. But I don't want to pretend that everything is completely binary and/or happens in a vacuum. I strongly believe that if humanity is to move beyond our current hyper-polarization, we nee…

It's the parenthetical "but not against any other group" assertion you made that is factually incorrect. Facebook repeatedly allowed statements celebrating military defeats of Isis and urging the local population to resist. These statements came from the then-president of the US and were not something that just flew under the radar.

> No, I'm not, and frankly I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith.

I did not assume bad faith, and if you reread my comment, you will see that I said your position was either naive or disingenuous. My hunch is that the former is accurate and that another party that made the argument in bad faith in the hopes of taking advantage of others' naivete.

Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations

#92

Post by NoGravitas »

giaour wrote: post #50
freedomben wrote: post #13

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…

You're trying to unfairly paint Facebook as having crossed a Rubicon with this decision. If the rules banned any exhortation to or glorification of violence, recruiting ads for the armed forces would have never been permitted. If Facebook forced itself to be blind to the difference between criminal violence and acts of war, Al Qaeda, Isis, and extra-legal militia groups would have been allowed to advocate for their v…

> If the rules banned any exhortation to or glorification of violence, recruiting ads for the armed forces would have never been permitted.

That would have been an unqualified good. Acts of war are criminal violence.

Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations

#93

Post by giaour »

myrmidon wrote: post #69
freedomben wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

"Flak" (meaning an anti-aircraft gun or shrapnel therefrom) can also be spelled "flack." The phrase "taking flack" is either a literal or metaphorical use of this meaning.

A flack (never spelled without a c) is a public relations or press agent, and to flack is to promote something (or otherwise do the work of a flack).

Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations

#94

Post by NoGravitas »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #81
VictorPath wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the citizens of Donetsk should be able to call for violence against the Ukranians invading their country.

Let me know when the Ukranian army crosses the frontier of the breakaway region. Until then, "the Ukranians invading their country" is rhetoric that is unconnected to reality.

Okay, they've just been shelling it for the last 8 years. That's totally fine until someone puts a foot over.

Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations

#95

Post by giaour »

NoGravitas wrote: post #92
giaour wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're trying to unfairly paint Facebook as having crossed a Rubicon with this decision. If the rules banned any exhortation to or glorification of violence, recruiting ads for the armed forces would have never been permitted. If Facebook forced itself to be blind to the difference between criminal violence and acts of war, Al Qaeda, Isis, and extra-legal militia groups would have been allowed to advocate for their v…

> If the rules banned any exhortation to or glorification of violence, recruiting ads for the armed forces would have never been permitted. That would have been an unqualified good. Acts of war are criminal violence.

It certainly would have avoided creating some ambiguity, but that has not been Facebook’s position at any point as far as I know.

Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations

#96

Post by happytoexplain »

NoGravitas wrote: post #94
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me know when the Ukranian army crosses the frontier of the breakaway region. Until then, "the Ukranians invading their country" is rhetoric that is unconnected to reality.

Okay, they've just been shelling it for the last 8 years. That's totally fine until someone puts a foot over.

I think you're letting emotions migrate the topic. The implication is not that it is "fine". War is never "fine", no matter how "just". The question is that of when it becomes impossible or undesirable to police "calls for violence", which is very broad. Ownership of that area is much more controversial than the ownership of Ukraine, and the actions taken are much less dramatic. I.e. attempting to prevent separatism is much less black and white than responding to a full blown foreign invasion. However, I understand there are people who disagree with what I think is "obvious".

Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations

#97

Post by pphysch »

rendall wrote: post #86
pphysch wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a contrived reframing. Why not have the issue be about "people who murder their partners"? What does their sexuality have to do with anything? If someone made your issue, I would immediately assume it was a veiled act of prejudice (e.g. replace "gay" with "Black"). A more honest reframing would be VK allowing/encouraging people to say "Death to America" and death threats against American soldiers, due to illeg…

The OPs claim is that allowing violent rhetoric against the Russian army is anti-Russian. True or not, how "Western governments would respond to" allowing violent rhetoric against US soldiers, isn't relevant to that claim. And, no, violent rhetoric against an invading national army is not equivalent to violent rhetoric against an ethnicity. The idea is offensive.

> And, no, violent rhetoric against an invading national army is not equivalent to violent rhetoric against an ethnicity. The idea is offensive.

Logically, you are correct.

In reality, people aren't so logical. They see Russia, they see red. There has been a massive explosion of outright russophobia across the West since the war started.

Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations

#98

Post by imwillofficial »

simion314 wrote: post #32
HKH2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was upset that FB has content only in one direction, anti-Russia. What makes you think the OP is upset? It seems like a neutral argument to me. Did the OP edit their post?

I might have misinterpreted the comment, now is flagged, would be a good idea if OP learns to be more clear and what he means and maybe link to the event he is refering rather then assume everyone will understand his allusions. Someone linked something so I am reading that now.

I was exceedingly clear and neutral.

Your own emotion read into words that were not there.

I simply stated a fact and offered no judgement on the merits of the action.

Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations

#99

Post by imwillofficial »

etchalon wrote: post #8
imwillofficial wrote: post #2

Facebook allowing targeted calls for violence to one side of a conflict only had a lot to do with this decision.

Are you arguing that there's moral similarity between an invading army and people who'd prefer not to be invaded, because "well, it's violence"?

Do you see where I made any argument?

Re: A Moscow court has banned Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations

#100

Post by pphysch »

splix wrote: post #85
pphysch wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Wagner = neo-Nazi" narrative appears to be disinformation based on 1 unverified image

Well, the "Wagner" by itself is a reference to Richard Wagner which is commonly associated with Nazy Germany [1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_controversies

That is an absurd guilt by association. Hitler does not own all references to a composer that he enjoyed posthumously.

By your logic, the Nexus Institute and its guests are neo-Nazis because they had a Wagner-themed round table discussion.

https://prometheanartists.com/new-events/2019/11/9/nexus-ins...

Post reply on HN