No. Inaction is equal to support of the Russian invasion ( like in so many other cases). People have to decide for themselves what they want, where their morals lie, and how they want to act on that. Message of support? Donation? Whatever. Ignoring the problem only helps the war criminals. Don't critique people for daring to speak and act against war crimes just because you're deciding for yourself to ignore them.
No, no it isn't, in this or in other situations. More than two choices _usually_ exist. Statements like this present a false dichotomy in an attempt to coerce people to support a preferred position or interpretation.
Person A: I'm doing <this thing> to support <cause> Person B: You shouldn't do <that thing> Person A (or more often, C): Inaction is equal to support / silence is violence
I think there is almost always more than one possible action, even in support of <cause>. Also, some well intentioned actions can hurt a cause, so inaction is obviously preferable. Or, there may be a third outcome that I like better than <cause> or <not cause>.
Let me get specific, to avoid my own criticism.
I don't know if what the original commenter is doing is worth the effort, in terms of supporting Ukraine in this conflict. There's obviously a cost, in terms of dev time and false positives (showing the message to an unintended audience). I do think it is usually annoying, distracting, and unnecessarily polarizing to add politics to technical projects, so I would lean against doing this, even if I agree with the politics. Good technical work is hard enough on its own.
I'm not terribly offended by this action, and I wouldn't criticize it on its own; but I definitely think that "inaction supports the Russian invasion" is out of line here.
It certainly is not.
Staying neutral on the matter of a straightforward invasion of another country where there is no meaningful "two sides to the issue" analysis to be had is equivalent to materially supporting the invasion. Anyone remotely rational has condemned these actions. True neutrally is only desirable for those who want to continue doing business with the Kremlin or who have other nefarious designs.
Technically, “war crimes”, “crimes against peace” and “crimes against humanity” are distinct categories (though the second two are often distinguished only by whether or not they occur in the context of a war; e.g., genocide is either a war crime or a crime against humanity, depending on context).
Aggression is a crime against peace, not a war crime.
> the indiscriminate bombing of civilian buildings as can be seen from numerous videos
Those would be war crimes, though videos of the impacts are generally only suggestive evidence of indiscriminate (or, worse, intentional) targeting.
Seems unlikely anything changes.