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

Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 333 posts

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#311

Post by dade_ »

xdennis wrote: post #301
dade_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calls for violence and hate are different things. I don't hate Russians, but I support violence against their soldiers invading Ukraine. Hating someone also doesn't mean they are worth the jail time from a violent act.

I think you'll find that when you see your family and friends being bombed you can't kill the invaders with a clear mind and no hate. There are already multiple car accidents caused by Ukrainian refuges in Romania because they're too distraught due to what they've suffered so far. And you want them to not hate Russians? You can't be rational when you see your battered 5 year old in the morgue.

I didn't say hate and acts of violence are mutually exclusive, only that they aren't the same thing.

Further, I wouldn't judge harshly anyone that exacted revenge though I would remind anyone that "revenge is a dish best served cold."

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#312

Post by mardifoufs »

esyir wrote: post #280
mardifoufs wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So supporting AL Qaida was morally right in the context of the American invasion/interference in the middle east? They were after all at the forefront of the fight against the invaders too.

That isn't really the gotcha you think it is. The world isn't some simple good/bad binary; one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist after all. Moreover, when the US went to Afghanistan, I certainly didn't judge Al Qaeda for using "terrorist" tactics like IEDs, or non-uniformed combat, in violation of the Geneva convention. They could have gone with honourable conventional warfare. Then they'd be honorable…

It wasn't a gotcha, and I don't disagree with the spirit of your comment. I really appreciate the consistency at least, but do you agree that you'd have been in a pretty tiny minority during the iraq or Afghanistan war?

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#313

Post by squarefoot »

ashwagary wrote: post #306
squarefoot wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is safe to assume nobody would like to start a nuclear war because of ensured mutual partial or total destruction; intervention in Ukraine with conventional weapons only would send a clear message that there is no will to reach that level.

>intervention in Ukraine with conventional weapons only would send a clear message that there is no will to reach that level. This is not true. No nuclear powers should engage in direct wars, I'm not a fan of proxy wars either but they are safer than direct conflicts which can easily escalate. We have never had a world war between nuclear armed states and we should avoid the potential at all costs.

That is what hurts me the most: want to be untouchable? Get nukes!

Iraq has been invaded for a lot less; Kuwait population back then was 1/20 than current Ukraine, but Saddam never had nukes (as any other WMDs, but I digress). So what happens if say 3 years from now Russia decides to invade an EU or NATO country? Will it make any difference that the invaded country is part of the EU or NATO? They still have nukes, so what would be the western response? Will the nuclear deterrent magically disappear because of a NATO or EU stamp somewhere? That is not a trivial issue; ignoring the nuclear threat is for sure the safest way, but can create a nasty precedent in which every nation with nuclear weapons could be entitled to do what they want if they become rogue as Russia is today.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#314

Post by esyir »

mardifoufs wrote: post #312
esyir wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't really the gotcha you think it is. The world isn't some simple good/bad binary; one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist after all. Moreover, when the US went to Afghanistan, I certainly didn't judge Al Qaeda for using "terrorist" tactics like IEDs, or non-uniformed combat, in violation of the Geneva convention. They could have gone with honourable conventional warfare. Then they'd be honorable…

It wasn't a gotcha, and I don't disagree with the spirit of your comment. I really appreciate the consistency at least, but do you agree that you'd have been in a pretty tiny minority during the iraq or Afghanistan war?

In the US? Sure. In afghanistan? I'm not so sure.

But I think that's besides the point. You'd be a minority in Russia too if you opposed the war in the Ukraine right now.

I strongly dislike the lens of morality here, because especially in this case, its coming from those who are insulated from the... Extenuating circumstances the Ukrainians find themselves in.

Furthermore I belive that most would do the same given similar circumstances. Historically speaking, it wasn't THAT long ago that the West aligned with the rather brutal Soviets to defeat their nazi greater enemy.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#315

Post by throwaway879080 »

AA-BA-94-2A-56 wrote: post #245

Misleading title and article. Facebook and Instagram are allowing people in countries neighboring Russia to call for violence against Russian who are not civilians. "We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians,” Meta said in a statement." Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/11/facebook-... This article from Reuters is at best clickbait, and at worse Russian pro-war p…

No post body was provided.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#316

Post by zip1234 »

FpUser wrote: post #134
mech422 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends if you violate the no fly zone... No one would be forcing Putin to violate it.

I do not think he would give a flying fuck about zone. And if planes will be downed he will have to answer and the war starts. Russia's army can not hope to win conventional conflict with NATO and is ruled by a rabid man at the top. the only thing it can do in response is to use nukes. After that say goodbye to a world.

In the Vietnam war there were actual Soviet troops shooting down American aircraft with SAMs and it didn't lead to nuclear war. Why do people think even providing Ukraine with aircraft will lead to WW3?

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#317

Post by ivan_gammel »

rightbyte wrote: post #240
ivan_gammel wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as Ukraine fighting a war, that would be impossible. If they will sign peace and focus on economic development to join EU, neo-nazi topic will change its polarity and become toxic again. There is no way Ukraine can join EU with "Pravy sector" being legal organization.

With "war" do you mean 2014+ or the full invasion? I understand that the gov. can't disband them now since they will just disobey orders and there is no resources to arrest them, but there was plenty of time before that. Using more or less neonazis as a separate unit is just begging for problems, even if you are fighting separatist militia. Thinking about it, it is total madness. There is a insane internal security r…

2014+, but that doesn’t really matter.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#318

Post by adamrezich »

yywwbbn wrote: post #243
Thorentis wrote: post #16

Ah yes, the double standards continue to show themselves. We can hate whoever the tech giants say we can hate.

They seem to be merely reacting to what general public opinion is (I assume their goal is to keeping their platform relevant rather than to shift what people think). If there was a widespread negative reaction to what they are doing in the west (or amongst their target audience)I’m sure they’d quickly change their policy.

you have the causality backwards

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#319

Post by FpUser »

zip1234 wrote: post #316
FpUser wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think he would give a flying fuck about zone. And if planes will be downed he will have to answer and the war starts. Russia's army can not hope to win conventional conflict with NATO and is ruled by a rabid man at the top. the only thing it can do in response is to use nukes. After that say goodbye to a world.

In the Vietnam war there were actual Soviet troops shooting down American aircraft with SAMs and it didn't lead to nuclear war. Why do people think even providing Ukraine with aircraft will lead to WW3?

I suggest you do dangerous experiments in your own backyard. I have no idea why they did not start war over Vietnam but I have a feeling the situation now is vastly different.

Re: Facebook and Instagram to temporarily allow calls for violence against Russians

#320

Post by AA-BA-94-2A-56 »

mardifoufs wrote: post #275
AA-BA-94-2A-56 wrote: post #245

Misleading title and article. Facebook and Instagram are allowing people in countries neighboring Russia to call for violence against Russian who are not civilians. "We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians,” Meta said in a statement." Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/11/facebook-... This article from Reuters is at best clickbait, and at worse Russian pro-war p…

Why did they both say "Russians" and Russian Soldiers " then? They made the distinction and then included both. It's hard to take to blame people for thinking that basically means civilians too when they explicitly didn't just limit it to Russian soldiers. It's such an obviously ambiguous statement that was not even needed in the first place. But yeah I'm sure Meta will be able to verify the military status of everyo…

> But yeah I'm sure Meta will be able to verify the military status of everyone that's being threatened or mobbed on Facebook.

You're straw-manning my argument. It's pretty obvious when someone says, 'death to the Russian invaders' that they mean Russian soldiers or Russians, specifically in the context of invading.

Also this change is only for the regions close to Ukraine. I personally would feel strongly if my neighbouring countries started getting invaded for no reason as well. If Meta don't relax the rules, it's likely they'll have to ban a lot of regular people from those countries.

Russia invaded a democracy. People nearby are going to be affected by it personally. They are going to have very strong emotions about it. They should be allowed to vent those emotions online without worrying about getting censored or banned for it.

Post reply on HN